Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Pillar Box Red 2006, $8.50-$10.00


Have you ever been stuck on a train or plane next to a person that insisted on talking to you, despite the fact your nose is in a book and you have earphones on? At first you're a little annoyed but after a while you discover the conversation isn't that bad? That's how I started my tasting of the Pillar Box. It was gawdy, obvious and I thought I had the wine all figured out. Boy did I jump to conclusions on this one! After letting the wine breath for another hour it really started to form some character. At a heady 15% alcohol it went down very smoothly too. In the end I didn't mind spending the rest of my evening with this wine and neither with you, especially at $8.50 a bottle. Cheers!


Robert Parker, 91 points: "The 2006 Pillar Box Red is 50% Shiraz, 42% Cabernet Sauvignon, and 8% Merlot aged in a mix of used French and American oak. Purple-colored, it offers an enticing, fruity nose including aromas of cassis, black cherry, black raspberry, and blueberry. Full-bodied, ripe, and layered with flavor, this wine totally over-delivers on my hedonist’s meter. Drink this awesome value over the next 2-3 years. Pillar Box has a powerful pedigree; fruit sourced from Henry’s Drive and winemaking consultation from the renowned Chris Ringland."

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

The Subjectivity of Wine

The following post is both interesting and humorous. Never underestimate the power of suggestion (marketing). Cheers.

by Jonah Lehrer http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/11/
In 2001, Frederic Brochet, of the University of Bordeaux, conducted two separate and very mischievous experiments. In the first test, Brochet invited 57 wine experts and asked them to give their impressions of what looked like two glasses of red and white wine. The wines were actually the same white wine, one of which had been tinted red with food coloring. But that didn't stop the experts from describing the "red" wine in language typically used to describe red wines. One expert praised its "jamminess," while another enjoyed its "crushed red fruit." Not a single one noticed it was actually a white wine.

The second test Brochet conducted was even more damning. He took a middling Bordeaux and served it in two different bottles. One bottle was a fancy grand-cru. The other bottle was an ordinary vin du table. Despite the fact that they were actually being served the exact same wine, the experts gave the differently labeled bottles nearly opposite ratings. The grand cru was "agreeable, woody, complex, balanced and rounded," while the vin du table was "weak, short, light, flat and faulty". Forty experts said the wine with the fancy label was worth drinking, while only 12 said the cheap wine was.

What these experiments neatly demonstrate is that the taste of a wine, like the taste of everything, is not merely the sum of our inputs, and cannot be solved in a bottom-up fashion. It cannot be deduced by beginning with our simplest sensations and extrapolating upwards. When we taste a wine, we aren't simply tasting the wine. This is because what we experience is not what we sense. Rather, experience is what happens when our senses are interpreted by our subjective brain, which brings to the moment its entire library of personal memories and idiosyncratic desires. As the philosopher Donald Davidson argued, it is ultimately impossible to distinguish between a subjective contribution to knowledge that comes from our selves (what he calls our "scheme") and an objective contribution that comes from the outside world ("the content"). Instead, in Davidson's influential epistemology, the "organizing system and something waiting to be organized" are hopelessly interdependent. Without our subjectivity we could never decipher our sensations, and without our sensations we would have nothing to be subjective about. In other words, we shouldn't be surprised that different people like different bottles of cheap wine.

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Wicked Brew

I once heard that most cases of wine will have one bottle that's "off" in taste. If you drink enough wine you've probably encountered a bottle gone bad, but is there any truth behind this?

I've never made or bottled wine myself but I have made numerous batches of homemade beer. At least in the beginning it seemed like the simplest mistake would make my beer nothing more than a carbonated mess. So what causes a perfectly good bottle of wine to taste bad? Looking for answers I contacted my friend and owner of the Wine School of Philadelphia, Keith Wallace. Keith is my mentor and the most unassuming wine expert you'll ever meet. According to Keith the most common reason for a bottle gone bad is the cork. Apparently a lot of wine makers selling affordable wine use cheaper cork, which means lots of fissures. Because the introduction of oxygen to the bottled wine means sure ruin, the wine maker will use a binding agent to fill the fissures. Unfortunately this binding agent is a chemical and it can give the wine an "off" taste. In the case of more expensive wines, occasionally an unfiltered wine can be a little off. Because unfiltered wine carries a lot of particulate there can be some variation in taste from bottle to bottle.