Are there objectively good and bad wines?

Part of the Burgundy 2018 thread, I think it deserves a wider audience.

Unless a wine is defective, I would say no. It’s the “if a tree falls in the forest” thing.

i dont think there can ever be objectivity in something where everyone perceives it differently.


except for the wine that my wifes distant uncle makes and brings to thanksgiving each year. we can all agree that is terrible stuff.

Other than wine faults, good and bad wine is entirely subjective.

Just like in music some prefer western classical music, some prefer rock, younger generation might prefer k-pop…

DRINK what you like and LISTEN to what you want to!

There are some wines are like Mozart’s music that many like and are more “popular” than others…

In my opinion, yes.

Yes.

Unfortunately (or fortunately?), the concept of “wine flaws” can be very subjective as well - for instance, while I consider a wine like Meiomi to be flawed, I’m sure plenty of people on here will tell me exactly why it isn’t and make very convincing arguments in doing so.

They won’t ever change my mind.

I’d probably phrase the question “are there objective standards of quality in wine,” thouhh, because the words good and bad become problematic in that they carry a lot of baggage.

I tend to not shit on other’s opinions, but…

Yes.

Think of food. Is a microwaved HotPocket covered in LuckyCharms and CaptnCrunch just as viable as “good food” if someone likes it?

Upon reading the thread title, my first thought was OP’s going for a soft troll. I mean, phrasing this question so broadly on a highly opinionated wine board…the semantics wars alone could last for pages lol.

i can think of several people I know who would choose the hot pocket over Alinea.

I would say yes there are objectively good and bad wines. First, as mentioned, flaws. If the wine has bacteria problems, is re-fermenting, has TCA, is cooked, etc.

Second there are wines that are just bad, as there is food that is just bad. Henry mentioned it. But I made cookies the other day. Butter, flour, etc. Some people will buy things like Oreos that are disgusting. It’s not a personal preference, it’s the entire goal of the product.

Oreos are dark to connote chocolate, but there isn’t any, they have some kind of lard-based or hydrogenated shortening mix that they add sugar and starch to and the entire product was designed to be garbage from the get go. They can be clean, made in a clinical environment, meet all kinds of objective standards, but the end goal is to produce crap. The idea is to get sugar and fat into consumers as cheaply as possible.

Same with wine. A wine like Meiomi comes to mind, as do the oceans of Gallo products and the peach and mango flavored concoctions you see in supermarkets.

Terry Theise wrote a book arguing “yes”. Seems a syllogism to me. I want to say yes but can’t see how either side of the argument can be proven (or is it “proved”?).

Even defective wine is subjective to degree of defect. For me, there is no such thing as a little corked. But I know those who can find enough redeeming value in a corked wine to continue drinking. People have varying degrees of acceptable levels of VA and Brett. Extraction in wine can be compared to butterfat in ice cream. For some, the more the better. For others, they would find the same to be disgustingly rich. It’s all on the palate of the imbiber.

I think wine, like art, movies, food, they have both objective and subjective natures.

There are objective differences between a Rembrandt painting and something your kid draws for art class. Skill, difficulty of composition. But there is a subjective dimension at the same time - maybe you just don’t like Rembrandt paintings, maybe the humble art of children deeply moves you. Maybe you like Monet or Warhol better.

I think there are objective measures of wine. The skill of the winemaker, the quality of the vineyard sources, the absence of flaws, things like purity and concentration and intensity of flavors.

And then there is a lot of room for subjectivity. Maybe you prefer a Beaujolais Nouveau to Harlan. Maybe you prefer Apothic to Cheval Blanc.

But I think you can say there are objective differences in quality between Red Bicyclette and DRC. I’m comfortable saying that, even at the same time that it’s fine if you prefer the former.

No, just some peoples tastes are better educated and refined than others.

editing for a realization:
Theres a difference between UNIVERSALLY accepted as bad and objectively bad. i got to thinking about this when thinking about current politics/world situations and realized there are some objective truths that are not accepted by everyone. an oreo or a wine could absolutely be the same way. but who sets the standard for an objective good wine?

Yes.
Like Matt’s comment above, we must have some undeniable truths or life loses a compass.
I am reminded of Walter Sobchak: “Nihilists! F#@k me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.”

Yes.

There is a great deal of objectivity in the evaluation of wine. The unpleasant reality is that many people within the world of wine collecting and most people outside of it do not have the experience or the innate palate sensitivity to properly detect all of the elements of the more subtle wines of the world.

Historically, with the 1855 Classification being a key example, complexity and nuance are key- or what one might broadly refer to more generally as breed. Terroir comes into that as well, with a great wine having the capacity to render a more detailed outcome that- via general knowledge of other wines of the region and nearby regions- can be identified to a particular site. And beyond that an especially unique or all-encompassing (or spherical if you will) presentation can result in a wine that is truly prized, such as Romanee-Conti.

The notion of Leoville Las Cases, Leoville Barton or Lynch Bages being elevated in the 1855 Classification makes no sense to me. Sure they have all made some great wines, but they lack the breed and full potential of what the firsts offer. There have been times in history when the firsts were lesser wines in terms of overall quality due to a lack of care in the vineyard and in elevage- but the breed of a first growth is always there, even if only barely visible, and its hallmark of greatness. I do by the way agree with the elevation of Mouton FWIW.

Winemaking technique, cleanliness of the facilities, grape choices, oak treatments etc. of course all have their influence for better or for worse, and of course different wines will deliver greatness in very different ways as a result of all these factors- but greatness is always evident.

It is a touchy subject because the reality is that one cannot really begin to separate the objective from the subjective- and consider it in the light of both current and long-held human aesthetic tendencies when evaluating the “goodness” of anything- until one has a lot of experience in tasting wine. I think 15-20 years is a good benchmark. And of course said person needs to also have a good palate and the ability to discern between what one likes and what is great. One of the greatest things Matt Kramer has ever said (and I am paraphrasing here since I do not have the book handy) is that a true wine connoisseur is someone who can taste a wine and say, “[this is a great wine, but I personally can’t stand it].”

Will be interesting to see where this thread goes. One thing I do know after 20 years on various wine boards is the number one way to get booted is to call someone out for not having a good palate. At a time when the hobby has become a status symbol, many participants take great false comfort in thinking that what they spend on wine somehow conveys a certain expertise and automatically commands a certain respect. But the reality has not changed that talent and a great many years of experience are the only way to truly understand this.

Incidentally, a really good book to read that is not wine related but very informative on this very topic is “The Art Instinct” by Denis Dutton. On the wine side, I would recommend “Wine Snobbery” by Andrew Barr and “Making Sense of Wine” by Matt Kramer.