A modest observation

[William P]

Funny how this Board has changed over the last year. Historically, we would agree (generally) on the big issues in Bordeaux. By analogy we were like the scientists in Newtonian/Einstein period of physics, there was consensus on the properties of physics/Bordeaux.

Then we hit the era of quantum physics/wine and it just is not consistent with the old way. It seems everyone and thing is in two places at one time. Now consensus is becoming rarer.

There is no judgment here, because it maybe there is no right or wrong. Wine is a myriad of factors coming together at a particular time and place. New wine techniques, palate, mood, age, storage, health, and bottling all create a new quantum experience in wine. Have we come to the point that wine opinions only exist at the point of time of an individual experience? Just a thought. Sorry, I'll go back to my cup of tea.

Bill

[Ognik]

Evolution.....maybe?

[William P]

Ognik, evolution certainly is a component.

[Harry C.]

Cut back on your dose of medicinal Marijuana!

[JimHow]

Ha interesting observation Bill.
Perhaps the Webb telescope will give us the answers, if it ever gets off the ground.

[stefan]

When Jay and I disagree on a vintage of La Lagune you know that the stars are not aligned. As Jim says, "we are doomed".

[William P]

Sorry Harry, no prescription needed in California.

[Racer Chris]

LOL

[Nicklasss]

No Bill, I can't see any changes.

I always disagree with other BWEers, but always agree with JimHow.

Nic

[JimHow]

That is because I am kind and benevolent....

[marcs]

I am quite an opinionated (but friendly!) person so perhaps I have contributed.

[DavidG]

I hear you Bill. Bordeaux in the modern era has become Schroedinger's Bordeaux: it is simultaneously aging beautifully and as lifeless as a dead cat until you open it.

At least our disagreements are friendly and informative.

[AKR]

I think we live in a remarkable time. So many different styles of wine. Generally availability and information continues to improve.

[jal]

Could it be that we never really had our own opinion but were just all copying from Parker, and now that he's out we have no shepherd to guide us and are going in all directions?
Obviously, tongue firmly in cheek here but still....

[William P]

Schroedinger's Bordeaux - nicely said David.

Jal I think there is a degree of truth to your point, that we no longer believe of even listen to wine experts. And if we do it's always with a grain of salt. In younger days it was gospel, well way younger.

[marcs]

Could it be that we never really had our own opinion but were just all copying from Parker, and now that he's out we have no shepherd to guide us and are going in all directions?
Obviously, tongue firmly in cheek here but still....

yeah, good point. No more canonical orthodoxy to follow, add to that the fact that we do all have actually different palates that taste things differently, and there you go...

[DavidG]

No question I liked many of the wines Parker liked. Over time we diverged somewhat. I still like both classic Bordeaux and young fruit-forward Napa Cabs, but I dumped almost all of my 2007 CduP and other Cambie-inspired wines.

Whether Parker's retirement or the rise of social media and the web, or likely both, there’s no question that there’s more diversity of opinion being expressed. And some movement among some producers away from the uber-ripe, uber-oaked modern styles. It’s a good thing. Like Arv says, it’s a remarkable time for wine lovers of all stripes.

[sdr]

Bordeaux in the modern era has become Schroedinger's Bordeaux: it is simultaneously aging beautifully and as lifeless as a dead cat until you open it.

So now I have to study quantum mechanics to read BWE.

Very impressive analogy indeed.

Stu