My fellow blogger Tom, who writes Fermentations, had a great post yesterday (and see his follow up) about a discussion he was observing (for the Nth time) on the bulletin boards at Robert M. Parker's Web site. The topic? Perfect wines (i.e. those which are scored as 100 point wines by the critics, or otherwise deemed perfect by those who are not critics). The question at hand, is whether it is really possible to proclaim a wine as perfect.
Tom uses Cartesian (a la Renee Descartes) philosophy to assert that in order to judge something perfect objectively, you must yourself be perfect or there must be such a thing as a perfect being (otherwise how else would you truly be sure to recognize perfection?). However, the one problem (which I have only too recently learned) with Cartesian philosophy is that it maintains that there is, in fact a REAL and OBJECTIVE world which people can perceive, and which any two truly rational people would perceive EXACTLY the same way.
When was the last time you saw or experienced anything in this world EXACTLY the same way as someone else? Do you have the impression that that chocolate cake you ate for dessert tasted exactly the same to you and your wife?
Other philosophers (e.g. Heidegger) would maintain that while there is certainly something out there outside of us which might be called the world or "reality," it is certainly not objective, and if you are going to call it real, then its reality is only in our (individual) interpretations of it.
This sits a lot better with me and I think helps ease the question of what really is a perfect wine. Perfect, according to most dictionary definitions, means "flawless, or lacking all defects." This at its base, is a judgment that has to be made by someone, an interpretation. And as a judgment made by an individual, it is subjective, and only valid for that one person, at that one time, in that particular place.
I have judged several wines as perfect here at Vinography. Perfect 10s. That's simply my opinion. As is a 100 point score by Parker or by any other critic or media outlet. You as a reader need to decide whose palate you trust no matter what the rating is, but even when you find someone who seems to turn you on to good wines, they will never be right for you 100% of the time. We are all different, and a wine score at the end of the day only means something, I mean really MEANS something, to the person who created it. For everyone else, it is a proxy for the level of faith that they might have in the palate of the reviewer.
Introducing The Essence of Wine Book Forlorn Hope: The Remarkable Wines of Matthew Rorick Vinography Unboxed: Week of November 24, 2013 Vinography Images: Down the Row Pinot Days Southern California 2013: December 7, Los Angeles When Should You Not Be Allowed to Be Biodynamic? Vinography Unboxed: Week of November 17, 2013 Vinography Images: Below the Clouds Don't Ask a Dinosaur for Directions California's Current Wine Revolution
Masuizumi Junmai Daiginjo, Toyama Prefecture Wine.Com Gives Retailers (and Consumers) the Finger 1961 Hospices de Beaune Emile Chandesais, Burgundy Wine Over Time The Better Half of My Palate 1999 KirÃ¡lyudvar "Lapis" Tokaji Furmint, Hungary What's Allowed in Your Wine and Winemaking Why Community Tasting Notes Sites Will Fail Appreciating Wine in Context The Soul vs. The Market 1989 Fiorano Botte 48 Semillion,Italy