UPDATE: My reading comprehension skills are apparently not what they used to be. So, for your entertainment, I’m going to correct what I wrote and leave the changes visible. If I were you, I wouldn’t trust anything you read here ever again. Additions in Italics.
Thanks to Jeremy from Do Bianchi for correcting this in — literally — three minutes. And, if I may risk a moment of sincerity, I’m sorry I screwed this one up.
UPDATE 2: I forgot about Arto. Arto correction in purple Italics.
If there are any more mistakes, can’t I just lop off a finger?
violates the Millennium Copyright Act exercises his right to fair use so I don’t have to, after a friend cuts and pastes cutting and pasting from something British wine writer Monty Waldin wrote on Jancis Robinson‘s blog commenting on earlier reports report that 80% of Brunello is not pure Sangiovese. Robinson Waldin also Arto, another person entirely but talking about roughly the same thing as best I can tell, implies an interesting essay question, saying:
- Don’t get me wrong, the wines may very well be excellent. But in the end the most crucial point isn’t the style of the wines nor even their quality but integrity and lack of it.
The essay question being:
If a wine is excellent in both quality and style, are there external factors that would make it a bad wine even if those factors are undetectable by human senses?
Robinson’sWaldin’s answer would be short.
I tend to think it’s more complicated than that, and probably don’t really have an answer. In general, I favor consumer protection that requires winemakers (and others) to be honest about what’s in a given product. But if the wine is “excellent” in style and quality…well, I’d probably still enjoy drinking it.