Adventures Palacescas |

Long ago in a galaxy far (chronologically at least, as it was in March 2008), read on Winecast some comments from Tim Elliot on a post of a blog unknown to me (still unknown to this day), the Rockss and Fruit about a third article (which apparently no one got on the Internet link - not even Google!) David Lillie, a reputable merchant New York, on the scoring system. He begins:

"When the 100-point scale to evaluate wines was adopted by Robert Parker and subsequent writers and publications, appeared to have a beneficial and stimulating effect on the American scene in the wine. Consumers who had knowledge and experience, or had suspicions about the wine market, confident they could march into a store and say "I'll buy a box of Chateau Cocoto he had 91 points for John Doe." The wine has become a more popular beverage and acceptable in homes and restaurants and the American image of the snooty wine agent was replaced by the more popular writings of Parker, Tanzer and Wine Spectator. The comfortable, even arbitrary scale points led the American consumer to unknown parts of the world, Gruner Veltliner became the new Pinot Grigio and producing never-before-known in obscure regions soon had North American importers. This is all very good, I suppose ... "(read the full article, in Portuguese)

Lillie is, then, to argue against the use of scores to "describe" wines and is in some way, escorted by several readers and bloggers of wine throughout the world.

The idea is not new, of course. Virtually all experienced lover (and, in particular, every wine merchant), already thought of abolishing request abolishing or at least question the scoring systems out there.

Same time I always grasp: the beginning (when it was night) I was told - Rate it! and I began to scribble a few sticky notes in accordance with the instructions. Then I realized how the notes were inconsistent, often as a wine delighted me and resulted in other grades and did not like at all or little liked, and came with a statement.

When I really started to look seriously at the wine, I realized that the method they were teaching me simply did not include scoring the wines, but classify them at the end of the tasting, for its quality.

Tim of Winecast, a wine compares to evaluate to evaluate a movie, while when it explodes for revenge, by Sergio Leone, is one of the best western ever produced, with cinematic techniques of weight, his wife is a real ... drunk. And it does not matter one bit to attend the fiftieth time Top Gun (the wonder of humanity) by tv.

Evaluate wines with points have significant utility, however: to enable a note relativize them and make them comparable. Sigo defending, however, my position that notes are VERY personal references. What is worth something to me, it is in certain circumstances and in accordance with references pre-established, that someone "outside" is not to judge. It would be like scoring tables and works of art, perhaps?

Someone there gives less than 100 points for the Picasso?

Someone there gives less than 100 points to a Picasso painting? From that point of view? Similarly to wine, an expert in painting could evaluate a table:

• technique of painting is appropriate? (depends on the season, no?)
• the use of colors like? (what purpose? decorate? scare? impress? the picture is happy or sad? represents a journey of lysergic acid or a bombing of World War II?)
• drawing and dash are correct? (this scribble there, my little brother is 4 years too.)
• frame has historical significance? (who won the war is who is going to say ...)

It is true that the public, or "decision makers" and "opinion leaders" create standards that determine what is "right" and "wrong" or what is expected of this or that quadro/vinho/produto-da- capacity-human-and-the-reality-with-what-we-in-contact. The problem, especially when talking about wine (as in painting), is that the possibilities are absolutely infinite.

(Why so far no one has to note painting, huh?)

Disregard the analogies and return to Bob (my plate, Parker): poor guy, is guilty of anything. The guy invented a simple, didactic and accessible to tell people of what he likes more (and get paid for this!), And eventually led tapas left and right because the notes have become a reference only and compulsory people began to follow them stupid.

I look ambiguous? Wait: I've heard that story before! (A follow donkey). What remains to the public wine is nothing special, difficult to understand or unique to this medium: lack common sense and your own opinion. And I'm not talking about ignoring the experts, not to say that "what is good is what you like" (which often is a big LIE).

There is nothing complicated by trying to understand why the Bob (the same), or Jorge Carrara (in Brazil) gave 87, 95 or 1112 points for a wine in choosing what we buy, especially if we consider notes that inevitably accompany the notes.

Lillie said that "even a description of the qualities of the wine carefully written and what food he can follow, it is quickly forgotten when followed by a number - even if that wine 85 points can be perfect with our dinner." In fact, a beautiful CEM-Zao does much more than just a summer oitentinha (like any high school student can be said after presenting the report to the dad), but let's see what the authors themselves say about their notes:

Robert Parker:

80-89 Wine above average to very good, with different layers of flavors and finesse and no apparent defects.
90-95 Wine memorable, exceptional quality and character.
96-100 extraordinary wine of profound and complex character, a classic. It's worth a special effort to look for it, buy it and consume it.

Wine Spectator:

80 to 84 Good: wine well made, solid quality
85 to 89 Very good: wine with special qualities
90 to 94 good: wine of superior character and style
95-100 Classic: a great wine

There is a widespread disease continually, so-called hay fever, 90-points. Around the world and with great force in Brazil, the wines of interest are the wines of 90 points (and is) not the wines that meet the demands (financial, taste, style of harmonization, etc.). People .

Yes, wines from more than 90 points are great. They were well-made. They appealed to the critics. No, they are not suitable for all times. They often are not ready to drink. They are expensive.

Well, I got carried away, I wrote too much and in the end, I decided very little. Fundamentally, this story is to remember that we really need is to prove and prove and prove again and enjoy what we have before us (or our cup!) With minimal preconceived notion or bias as possible. And health!

[09.01.09 PS: Be sure to read the post What Bob says, that translate excerpts from Parker's Wine Buyer's Guide to talk about how the Parker scores to wines and producers.]