Talk:The Judgment of Paris 30th Anniversary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wine WikiProject
Wine Portal
The Judgment of Paris 30th Anniversary is part of WikiProject Wine, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of wines, grapes, wine producers and wine growing regions. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page where you can join the project and find other ways of helping.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale within WikiProject Wine.
Assessment comments

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Wine open tasks
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
This article is within the scope of the San Francisco Bay Area WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of San Francisco and the Bay Area. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Holy cow this title is incidiary. An interesting rematch yes, Rematch of the Century, isn't that a bit over the top?!? Mikecase00 17:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


--What's incindary about it?

Ok, people, lets agree there's nothing incendiary about it at all.

--Which wine tasting was more important than the Paris Wine Tasting of 1976????BMackey 02:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


It's incindiary because, one, that's not the official title of the tasting, and two, naming anything the "vintage of the century", the "tasting of the century", the "rematch of the century" is laughable when we're only 6 years into the century. I can't think of a single scholarly work where the superlative "of the century" would be used. It's just over-the-top sensationalisim.

Mikecase00 19:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

1970 was not a great/historic/legendary year in Bordeaux!

Saying 1970 was the best vintage for Pauillac between 1961 and 1982 is faint praise. Of course, at the time 1970 was looked on as a very good vintage, it was surrounded by 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, and 74 all poor years for Bordeaux, some are considered amongst the worst vintages of the entire 20th century. Additionally, Margaux, Lafite, and several other top growths were all mired in qualitative slumps at the time. No knowledgable Bordeaux expert one would argue that anything from Medoc between 61 and 82 could be considered a great year or rank any of those vintages as the "Best of the Best".

I realize that by painting 1970 as a great year for Bordeaux it makes the results of the tasting look more significant, so it's pretty clear why it keeps getting pushed into the article. I just want it made clear that it's hardly an accepted fact that 1970 was a great year for Bordeaux outside of Pomerol, and that it's pretty obviously the editor's own POV when it's included in the article.

I'm not trying to refute the results of the tasting, the wines from the Medoc clearly lost, as they should have, but these are clearly not the best examples of what Bordeaux is capable of. For that they would need something from 61, 82, 86, 90, or 2000. Mikecase00 17:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


1970 was among the four best vintages in 45 years according to Conseil Interprofessionel du Vin de Bordeaux!

Mike- Your disagreement should be with the Conseil Interprofessionel du Vin de Bordeaux, which has rated 1970 as among the four best vintages in the past 45 years. Constantly trying to find someone who disagrees with it suggests POV in trying to minimize the significance of the results of the Paris Wine Tasting of 1976, the Ottawa Wine Tasting of 1981, the French Culinary Institute Wine Tasting of 1986 and The Wine Rematch of the Century, all of which used that historically outstanding vintage.

You say that the French wines were poor and should have lost because they were so bad. However, that’s clearly not the reaction of the judges at the Paris competition, some of whom claimed deception, wanted their ballots back so they could change their scores, and still refuse to talk about the event to this day. It wasn’t the reaction of the French wine industry, which punished the event organizer for accidentally embarrassing it. It wasn’t the reaction of the growers who ran him off their property and told him never to return. It wasn’t the reaction of the vintners, some of whom wrote angry letters to the winning winemakers insisting that French wines are better than California wine “in principle” and always will be superior. And it wasn’t the reaction of the French press, which largely ignored, downplayed and trivialized the results.

You suggest that the 1982, 1986, 1990 or 2000 vintages might have been able to beat the California upstarts. But those cherry-picked vintages weren't around in 1976. And you suggest stacking the deck even more by using the 1961 vintage, which is one of the two or three best vintages of the entire 20th century. All of this to try to beat wineries, two of which were only four years old!

If the period of over two decades in the 1960s and 1970s was characterized by such poor and mediocre vintages as you indicate, then the region must have been unfairly coasting on its reputation and its high prices were exploiting the deceived consumer, as Robert Parker has suggested.BMackey 02:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Note I said that the Bordeaux wines should have lost when their 1970's were included in the tastings you mention. I also pointed out that at the time several of the best estates were in fact coasting on their reputations and not making the most of their vineyards. My issue is simply with the idea that 1970 should be considered one og the greatest years for Bordeaux, when in fact, it's surpassed by 2000, 1998, 1996, 1995, 1990, 1988, 1986, 1985, 1982. That's 9 vintages that are generally considered superior to 1970 outside of Pomerol. It's hard to imagine how the Bordeaux Council ranks 1970 above these if Pomerol is factored out.

Let me reiterate, I'm not disputing the results of the Paris tasting, The Bordeaux wines have been shown inferior several times now, but given what Bordeaux was producing at the time they deserved to loose. I object to the idea that Bordeaux wines included in the tasting are representative of the best of what Bordeaux is capable of producing. 71.104.191.254 15:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)



The Emperor Has No Clothes

The owners of 30 of the best wines in the world, in the judgment of a Champagne company president, were invited to a party in 1997. The event was organized by Jean-Claude Rouzaud to celebrate the 30th anniversary of his presidency of Champagne Louis Roederer. Half of his selections were from France. "I’m a chauvinist and a nationalist" he explained.

"Before agreeing to participate, the Bordeaux first growths set some conditions, the foremost being that no comparative tasting with their international competition would be held." They didn’t even want to be included in a group photo with their colleagues from other wine regions, although they finally reluctantly agreed. "But getting the Bordelais to have their wines served with the others', that was out of the question," said a Roederer spokesperson.

So the event took place in two separate parts: first, a dinner featuring the Bordeaux wines; then a tasting the next day with all the other wines, but no Bordeaux.

"They are cowards," said a non-Bordeaux producer. But the host said "I understand them." He explained that "They feel that when you are first growths you are untouchable." Their problem is that they actually know better.

They and the other growth vineyards have a carefully cultivated image of superiority. This is a marketing advantage worth an incredibly enormous sum of money every year. However, they frequently fail to perform well in comparisons and realize how vulnerable they are to exposure and the destruction of their vaulted and very valuable reputations.

Because of this the 1-5 growths (1) want to avoid comparisons and (2) try to discredit the results of such comparisons . Who can blame them? Those results can cost them a fortune in lost revenue.

Party in Paris. Wine Spectator, 15-11-97 [1]Vinifera 14:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] HOAX

Another hoax, thanks to the wine industry business, only the consumer get screwed, not Bordeaux still selling at ridiculous prices some of its worst vintages, and certainly not Napa fermentation industry! Anyway, anyone knowing about wines, knows that public "blind tasting" by experts has no value since they are far from being blind with wines! In addition, for sample, anyone can check that a Haut-Brion it is not a 75% Cabernet! More around 50% Cabernet, 25% Merlot and 25% Cabernet Franc… Only cheaters would get involved in tastings like this one. Anyone citing something from the "Wine Spectator" is a joke about wine or a professional making money thanks to people credulity and lack of honesty. Dragolight 21:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • It is obvious that wikipedia has been used as a advertising arena. I've read about the growing importance of this type of wine in the UK. But worse than this (California has Mediterranean climate, but not Canada), look at this one: Ottawa_Wine_Tasting_of_2005. They are taking consumers as idiots. there are several articles with these hoaxes (NPOV: advertising articles) in wikipedia. New world wine are spotted by their homogenized/instantaneous flavour and sugar flavour, while old world wines often have a changing flavour. Even non-experts can taste the difference. --Pedro 02:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hoax allegation

Many people intensely and understandably dislike the results of the Wine Spectator Wine Tasting of 1986 wine competition; you can enjoy the company of a very large group of people. However, you've provided no evidence of either a hoax or a conspiracy. The allegations in "French Bordeaux competition" are not supported by, nor are they consistent with, CellarNotes and other sources of price information. The material in "Vintage charts comparison" is redundant, except that the last sentence lacks support.Hal Birch 02:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)— Hal Birch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Agreed. These tastings are definetly not Hoaxes. I think the methodology was flawed and the results generally misconstrued, but that's debatable.


[edit] OMG....this title!

It takes up nearly the entire width of the screen-not to mention the POV issues. Can't we think of something better? How about 30th Anniversary of the Judgment of Paris? Agne 04:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but how about

  • 30th Anniversary of the 1976 Paris Wine Tasting or
  • 1976 Paris Wine Tasting : 30th Anniversary?

(more meaningful to the casual surfer, imo) Regards -- Steve.Moulding 14:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. The original page name was just a slogan used by nobody at all (see Mike Case's comment at top of the the page) so I went for the official title. I think The Judgment of Paris 30th Anniversary would probably be best as it draws from the official title and JoP seems to be used a lot by journalists. Nunquam Dormio 19:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah...now I see where it was coming from. I agree that the original title had serious issues. This one just shocked me with its length. I could live with The Judgment of Paris 30th Anniversary. Agne 20:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, despite the popularity of JoP with journalists, the wikipedia page is called Paris_Wine_Tasting_of_1976 and the wikipedia page Judgment of Paris is something else altogether. Paris_Wine_Tasting_of_1976 : 30th Anniversary (or some variation) provides context, removes the possibiity of confusion, and shows that it is directly related to, and is indeed an extension of, the original article. Anyway, just my opinion. All suggestions are better than the original :-) Regards Steve.Moulding 21:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, good point about the original Judgment of Paris article. I honestly think that article should be moved to Judgment of Paris (mythology) with a disambig page for the phrase Judgment of Paris. The big thing that I see here, is that it is quite common for the 1976 tasting to be called the Judgment of Paris and not just by journalist. I think most of my customers and fellow winos who are even aware of the Paris tasting know it more as the Judgment of Paris then the 1976 Paris Tasting. In fact, I've seen and heard countless references to the "famous" 19'75, 1970 and 1986 Paris tastings then I would like to remember. :p. Agne 22:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. Judgment of Paris (mythology), Judgment of Paris (wine) plus the disambig, and then move this to The Judgment of Paris 30th Anniversary Regards -- Steve.Moulding 22:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Now the million dollar question will be if the editors of the mythology page will go for it. I'll ask to get the ball rolling. Agne 22:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1976 results here dont look right

[edit] Disambig page created. Discussion about Primary topic

See Talk:Judgment of Paris (disambiguation) for more details. AgneCheese/Wine 21:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)