Just saw that Jamie Goode has described a Californian Sangiovese on Facebook as ‘quite good’. Actually, I got that wrong, the term he used was was ‘actually quite good’. And then when I looked for it on his blog, I found that this was very much a positive comment (it’s here if you want to take a look). It got me thinking of the nuances of English as spoken by the English. Earlier this year in Argentina, I spent an evening talking to someone about the use of the word ‘good’ in combination with other phrases as a qualitative assessment of wine. In increasing order of appreciation, the scale – now amended to include ‘actually quite good’ – runs like this:-
Quite Good
Good
Actually Quite Good
Rather Good
Really Rather Good
Extremely Good
Did I succeed in getting the message across? Certainly I was more successful than when I tried to explain to Philippe Chavy in Meursault what a chav was. But ultimately, I have the feeling that I confused rather than enlightened my Argentina audience – and since I haven’t found much support for my Plant Pot to Yeah But No But system, it looks like it’s back to the 100 point scale for me…
That array of descriptors is certainly as valid as any others I know. My favorite, wich I may or may not have coined, is “It has flavor.” More often than not, this is aimed at California Chardonnays.
Please pass me the potatoes with duck juice.
Hi Ken, how are the guitars? Like ‘it has flavo(u)r’ – it’s up there with other comments such as ‘this must once have been rather good’ and ‘did you achieve what you were trying to with this wine?’
Actually Quite Good post, Simon. The phrase ‘damning with faint praise’ could have been invented for the English.
I watched the middle three sets of the match and then got in my car and drove home from Brighton. Fed won just as I pulled into Wimbledon. How appropriate. And boring. Can’t forgive him the jackets.