Talk:St. Catharines Wine Tasting of 2005
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
St. Catharines Wine Tasting of 2005 is part of WikiProject Wine, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of wines, grapes, wine producers and wine growing regions. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page where you can join the project and find other ways of helping. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale within WikiProject Wine. | ||
|
Assessment comments
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
|
WikiProject Wine open tasks
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
|
|||
Why was the information about the pricing practices of the Canadian Liquor Control Board removed? That's not a rant, that's fact. In Canada, wines from foreign countries are priced significantly higher due to tariffs and taxes than domestically prodiced wines. Not including this information distorts the picture of the results. Besides I could find prices much lower for the Bordeaux and much higher for the Canadian wines if I looked. Including an actual dollar amount figure is misleading and should either include the caveat or not be included at all. - Mikecase00 - 20060523
My first inclination was to agree with Mike. However, the prices of all alcohol beverages in at least some Canadian provinces (and many US states) are kept artificially high to discourage consumption as a matter of "alcohol control" public policy unrelated to product origin. The exact prices at which the wines could be purchased in various places in the world is irrelevant. Prices may differ elsewhere, but the general relationship among the specific beverages would remain. The "take home" point is that price was not closely related to quality. That's certainly important information for consumers.BMackey 01:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm still not sold, I think that prices are very fluid for wine depending on where you're from and what the liquor laws of the area are. I'm from California, our Bordeaux prices are much more competitive in comparison to what Canadian wines can be found down here. By quoting a price and not including currency information and caveats it implies a degree of specificity in the price gap that is not realistic. I purchased bottles of the 1999 Branaire on release for $20US for example. Not sure what that would be in Canadia, but it would certainly have been under $50CAN. I think that calling the Branaire an $85 wine distorts the picture. I'm more open to leaving it as a general statement... something along the lines of "The third-ranking entry (an Ontario wine) was significantly less expensive than the twelfth ranking Bordeaux". I think that gets your point across without distorting the pricing issue. - Mikecase00 - 20060524
I think my edit incorporates both your point and his about price. In addition I've added something about wine origin and rank.BMackey 17:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that's an acceptable edit. Specific pricing info is just too reliant on some pretty varied pricing and regulatory laws. That said, I still think the significance of this and many of the similar tastings is very overplayed here on wikipedia. I don't think that anyone doubts that great wine can be made in lots of places around the world, including Canada, the US, Australia and Chile, but the insinuation here is that wines from Ontario are somehow "better" than their Bordeaux counterparts. The wines selected from Bordeaux outside of Branaire are widely considered to be pretty mediocre producers. The average Robert Parker and Wine Spectator scores for Camensac, Lynch Moussas and Haut-Bages-Liberal bear this out even when compared to their fifth-growth peers like d'Armailhac and Clerc Milon let alone more famous fifths like Pontet-Canet, Grand Puy Lacoste or Lynch Bages or over achieving cru bourgois like Sociando Mallet or Charmail. If the point of the tasting was to prove that best wines from Ontario can compete with mediocre Bordeaux I'd say the point has been proven, but it shouldn't have been a suprise, nor is it particularly significant. Mikecase00 20:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It's highly significant that in the 30-year anniversary re-tasting, California reds aged much better than their Bordeaux competition and that this time they took all top five ranks. This is, of course, consistent with the two ten-year anniversary blind tastings that found California reds to have aged better than their competition (Wine Spectator Wine Tasting of 1986 and French Culinary Institute Wine Tasting of 1986).
Unfortunately, each and every earlier ordinally-ranked blind tasting wine competition result has been "explained away" as a fluke, challenged and minimized as being of little significance, and had its inclusion attributed to bias.
Objective observers see it differently.
From the Times of London [1]:
"THIRTY years had passed since the Judgment of Paris, when French oenophiles received a red nose at the hands of American upstarts in a blind wine-tasting competition.
But to the dismay of the French wine experts taking part in last night’s eagerly awaited rematch, Californian vintages have again trumped their Gallic counterparts. ..... Despite the French tasters, many of whom had taken part in the original tasting, "expecting the downfall" of the American vineyards, they had to admit that the harmony of the Californian cabernets had beaten them again. Judges on both continents gave top honours to a 1971 Ridge Monte Bello cabernet from Napa Valley. Four Californian reds occupied the next placings before the highest-ranked Bordeaux, a 1970 Château MoutonRothschild, came in at sixth."BMackey 01:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
From Stephen Browett of Farr Vintners, on Jancis Robinson's website regarding the 30 year retasting: "...some people might be surprised that the Bordeaux wines were trounced by the Californians but I think that it's worth pointing out that these Bordeaux wines are not great or famous examples. In fact, the early 1970s were a real low point in the history of Bordeaux wine with high yields, poor weather, no selection and uninspired wine-making. I think it's ridiculous to put Léoville Las Cases 1971 in an international tasting because it is a famously rubbish wine made pre-Michel Delon in a mediocre vintage for St Julien. Parker's score of 73/100 is about right and it's not surprising that it showed badly. Mouton and Haut Brion 1970 have never been particularly good in my opinion either and I think that the market bears this out. Despite being rare, famous first growths and 36 years old, whenever we have them in stock they struggle to sell at £100 to 120 per bottle. People are happier to pay a considerably higher price for recent immature vintages than for these knackered old relics. Farr Vintners would sell Las Cases 1971 for less money than Las Cases 2001 for example. It should be noted that the Californian wines on show are worth considerably higher prices than the French so this is not a case of the cheap young upstart beating the expensive old classic.
No doubt the press will have a field day announcing that New World beats Old World, but Bordeaux is making infinitely better wines these days and picking dodgy old claret to show against the best of California proves nothing. Move forward 20 years and do Bordeaux v California in 1990 and it would be a different story. Indeed your scores on 2000 show an average 2 point advantage to France."
And Jancis Robinson's response "Absolutely...."
I think that about sums up the reality of the tasting. Everyone knows California can make world class wine now, as can many other places around the world. Lets see a similar tasting pitting 1982 or 1990 Bordeaux against their California counterparts. You'd likely see a very different picture, but it still proves nothing. 1990 and 1982 were weak vintages in California. As I've said before, these are interesting parlor games, but you shouldn't hang much significance on them. It's like debating whether Beethoven or Motzart was the better composer by comparing individual pieces against one another. It makes for interesting debate, but in the end you end up with a judgment that's both subjective and meaningless.
If Bordeaux wines were so inferior, why does 1982/1990/2000 Latour sell for $500+US a bottle? I'll give you a hint, it's not because no one likes it... Mikecase00 16:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
So, Bordeaux wine merchant Farr Vintners doesn't like the results of the 30th anniversary wine competition! Obviously, some people tend to defend rigidly-held beliefs against negative evidence. We see this with political fanatics, religious zealots, Holocaust deniers, those with a vested economic self-interest in wine (such as Farr Vintners, who specialize in “top Bordeaux wines”), and others.
They can formulate elaborate explanations, such as does Farr Vintners, to discount every piece of disconfirming evidence. That’s how many people can still refuse to believe that quality wine is produced outside France and that classified Bordeaux wines are always superior.
Blind taste tests pose an enormous threat to those in France, California and elsewhere who produce or, like Farr Vintners, sell expensive trophy wines. That’s because the ever accumulating test results make it increasingly difficult for them to maintain the false image of enormous superiority. And failure to maintain that fiction reduces their income.BMackey 23:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you miss the point. Also, note that respected critic Jancis Robinson (who participated in the tasting) agrees with him. Anyway, the results of the Paris tasting have been out for 30 years now, why do the top tier Bordeaux wines continue to fetch high prices? I'll give you a hint, it has something to do with demand...
As I've said before, there are very few people today who do not believe California is capable of creating world class and ageworthy wines. What I do object to is someone saying one class of wines are inherantly better than another. To look at the results and conclude that all California wines must be better than all French wines is pure tripe. Pick another set of wines, another vintage, another set of judges and the results are different. That's because tasting is subjective.
BTW, California wines today can be every bit as expensive as top wines from Bordeaux (see Screaming Eagle fetching a few thousand US$ per bottle at auction). Should they be worried about loosing their income to some upstart wine producing region in China or India? Mikecase00 23:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Mike- Hope I haven't missed the point the point:
--- I have friends who believe that only France produces the best wines in the world and they also believe that only Bordeaux wines are age worthy. These are widely held beliefs. In fact, they are so widely believed that they create high demand and resulting high prices.
--- I agree completely with you that no region’s terroir or wine is inherently better than that of all others. But this, too, is a very widely held belief.
--- I agree completely with you that “To look at the results and conclude that all California wines must be better than all French wines is pure tripe,” Fortunately, I don’t know of anyone who has ever made such an assertion or even implied it so I don’t think it’s a problem.
--- Cult wines are produced in a number of regions and those who make and sell them have good reason to fear the results of blind taste tests.
--- I certainly don’t write off either India or China as being able to produce high quality wines. I have an open mind about it. The proof will be in the pudding (or, more accurately, in the blind taste tests). When that time comes, I hope that no one will be trying to defend California or other wines against the results of those tests.BMackey 01:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 4th paragraph: incorrect claim
I believe the statement about the four French châteaux to "have been classified in the Bordeaux Wine Official Classification of 1855 as being among the very best in Bordeaux" is factually incorrect and distorts the neutral point of view. One of the châteaux was classified as Fourth Growth and the other three as Fifth Growth, which places them close to the bottom of the list. Maybe the best, but hardly "the very best". ScalarField 2006-11-19
-
- The entire article is a joke, and absurdly POV. Well, at least it made me laugh. For example, Camensac is well known to be one of the least good of the Cru Classe and can be bought for around 15 euros, in fact much cheaper than the Colio. Poujeaux 17:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
