Well, I found this article (and especially the responses) hilarious. Yes, it was not totally unfounded and not totally accurate either. [I probably should just stop here.] Long rant to follow.
However, I must continue. I know there is a lot of bs out there about wine. Fortunately, I don't see that on this board. Like others of us, I take Wine Spectator (WS) but that makes me neither an expert nor a snob. The marketing hype in wine is sufficiently high that it probably deserves some of this kind of shellacking in the linked article.
Wine Spectator is a pre-eminent journal that covers winemakers and wineries, and evaluates many many wines. It could be said to represent the worst of what this negative article criticizes. But the WS editorials make it very clear that everyone is not at the same level when it comes to tasting and evaluating wine (duh!). They also reinforce the idea that I have always believed and that is that YOU ARE THE EXPERT REGARDING THE WINE YOU LIKE.
HOW you decide to describe wine is really up to you. Between just us, the fancier you get the more skeptical I become. But, really, the tasting/smelling capability of humans varies much and even the best of them requires training. I notice that many of the best trained do not resort to overly fanciful descriptions.
The WS expert tasters know what the varietal is they are judging and that is all. They don't see the label, know the brand, its price, nor its region of origin. And of course they don't all agree either so the numerical score they come up with is an average of the evaluating judges.
I believe quantitative ratings by these experts are good guideposts for wine drinkers in general and for us home winemakers as well. I am a value wine person. I like to buy the wines they rate in the high 80s and low 90s, especially when they are reasonably priced. That helps me know what flavor profile I should be shooting for in each varietal I am making and gives me a benchmark of sorts. Hey, it works for me -- your mileage may vary.
NS
