Judging the Judges

Eric Asimov, chief wine critic of the NY Times, recently wrote an article hailing a so- called new style of lighter, more delicate Cali Pinots, comparing them to the traditional Burgundian approach to winemaking.

So far so good. I think virtually all winemakers are glad that the marketplace is sufficiently large and diverse as to support a wide range of varietals and a wide range of styles within those varietals.

However, Asimov went on to cast some aspersions toward the richer, riper, more robust, dark fruit style that Calicaro and many other Pinot vintners often like to make.

Again, I'll give Asimov some leeway here. As in all trends, one can find examples where things went too far, with high alcohol levels producing a hot finish and wines bearing too much resemblance to cough syrup or cherry coke flavored vodka.

But Asimov paints with far too broad a brush, not just taking up for his favored small list of brands but also choosing to denigrate all the rest of the Cali Pinot world. He takes a stance of moral superiority about a matter that is entirely one of palate preference. And no, in case you're wondering, he did not take any swipes specifcally at Calicaro or any other wine brands, instead suggesting that almost all of the Cali Pinot market seems to fall into this category, with only his small list having seen the light and found their way to true Burgundian Pinot salvation. This is riduculous. Many of the more robust style are wonderful balanced delicious wines and consumers and other critics love them.

The wine bulletin boards went into a frenzy about this. Pinot lovers are a notoriously temperamental and thin skinned variety, just like their favorite grape. Erobertparker.com's thread on the subject has had about 19,000 viewings and about 600 postings, many expressing outrage and, invitably, some taking up for Burgundy and Asimov.

Yours truly posted a number of times. My point was that we all have style preferences. Let's just acknowledge that and agree that one style has no inherent superiority over another style. Judge against others in that style and forget the rest. In other words, just because Burgundy is traditionally a lighter and more demure expression of Pinot Noir does not mean that the more rubust Cali style is inferior or unworthy. Clearly, the market agrees with me, as the richer, riper style has become more popular in the last 15 years.

And why judge Cali Pinot against Burgundy anyway? Isn't the idea of terroir to express the place where it comes from, and clearly the favorable Cali climate allows for riper fruit than Burgundy?

Shouldn't we judge wines against others of the same style rather than different styles, and just acknowledge that they are different styles and will appeal to different groups of people based on their palate preferences?

This idea started a whole new thread, which has now taken off with alot of postings.

So here's the question: should a critic judge subjectively according to his or her palate? And if so, should the critic provide full and frequent disclosure of his or her palate preference so the consumer can tell whether their palates match up?

Or should the critic reach for a measure of objectivity and professionalism, judging a wine as objectively as possible against quality parameters applied equally to other wines made in the same style?

Or is there room in the marketplace of ideas for both approaches?

Cheers,

Dave