Different Tongues - Power of Suggestion

[IVYCHEF]

WC - thanks for the "100 point tip" [img]http://www.wines.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

Nancy,

I, too, at one time, played a lot "by the numbers". In '93 I would have considered myself a novice but the incident with the Syrah-Sirah turned me 180: I probably would have never tried this wine if I knew the "mighty WS" gave it a 78. There is nothing wrong with numbers as long as you are trying to train your palate in the meantime, which it sounds like you are [img]http://www.wines.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] But to ignore a such wines as Bucko's forementioned Forest Glen Sangiovese because it was rated a 85 is a mistake in my book...I tend to think its a "little" bit better than that. I'm not saying to ignore them completely as they do, for the most part, help project the quality of the wine. But be advised and aware that numbers can be misleading on their own. Another example of this that jumps to mind is the 1990 Pichon Lalande. WS rated it 97 on release and has since revised it to 94, Parker rated it a 79. Who do you believe if you play it strictly by the numbers [img]http://www.wines.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] FWIW, the last time I tried it 2? years ago I thought it was much closer to WS than Parker.

And apparently, I like cat pee (as disgustion as it sounds)as there are very few NZ Sauv. Blancs I don't like. I have little clue to what "they" are referring to, either [img]http://www.wines.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img], so don't feel bad. Some say its synonymous with gooseberries, which I'm very familiar with and like...(but is it the green gooseberry or the elusive purple gooseberry...yes, there IS such a thing! [img]http://www.wines.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img])

Kevin



[This message has been edited by IVYCHEF (edited 03-25-99).]