So there was this tasting in New Jersey last night. Organized by my friend Jeff, it featured about 20 wines presented blind, with about a dozen in attendance.
Robert Parker wasn't there. But his holographic presence hovered over the event like a swarm of sugar-filled pixels.
As the wine group's host of the week, Jeff had asked people to bring reds. Since it was very hot everyone was glad when he broke his own rule and poured a grower Champagne and a couple of whites. I brought a very dry, structured rosato from Campania (corked). Except for a couple of sweet wines at the end, the rest were reds.
And guess which ones earned the highest accolades? The big fruit-forward ones with Cab and/or Merlot predominating, plus an Aglianico and a Rhone (a 1994 CDP that was like a changeling in the glass, which the chef in attendance declared a "nightmare" from his profession's point of view -- and a diner's, I added).
Anyway, what did we learn there? That even wine-savvy people, several of them in some part of the wine biz, betray a "Parkerized" taste.* No matter what people claim to prefer, when it comes down to the stuff in the glass they seem to home in on a fairly narrow band of flavors and smells. Such wines are open, available, holding little or nothing back. Given the relatively small amount of food we had -- this was definitely not a true tasting dinner, where less approachable wines might have opened up to us -- I think this was inevitable. In such a context the bigger, fruitier, sunnier wines really do outshine the others.
The evening wasn't without its lively discussions and disagreements. But again it was the overwhelming uniformity of response that surprised me. Including surprise at some of my own judgments and in-the-heat-of-the moment declarations.
It was like a focus group, in which group think often takes over, skewing the results. (Which the moderator will sometimes encourage if it's all going the way the client wants it to. Tastings are essentially the same sort of thing.) I add this because there seemed to be rather little tolerance for a nose or a taste that wasn't immediately there or that was a bit demanding. Again I confess my guilt -- except for that Chateauneuf-du-Pape, which I felt was an unstable mess, all over the place.
* "Parkerized" is really another way of saying American, since Mr. P rose to prominence precisely because his palate matches our national preferences. As a bunch of Puritans in the wilderness, we're secret Hedonists. Historically we've always loved our booze and our sweets, as any cursory reading of Colonial history will reveal. Parker showed us how to have our blackberry pie and drink it too, dressed up with B-school respectability in an allegedly objective numeric system. (No coincidence that his rise began at the start of the B-school fad of the early 80s.)
So, Mr Koeppel, as to "plush and rich, not demanding" wines not being "an improvement," I won't disagree.
That's why I subtitled this posting "up a lazy river". National tastes change about as fast a full barge laboring up the Mississippi. We'll be amassing points and guzzling fruit bombs for many years to come.
Recent Comments