In wine, preferences depend on your perspective

I RECENTLY reconnected with a high-school acquaintance (via Facebook — how else?) who, it turns out, owns a winery in Michigan. She was curious about my taste preferences and wondered if I gave good reviews only to wines that fit my personal palate.

The answer is no. I certainly have personal preferences, and they clearly intersect with the much wider circle of wines to which I give the best reviews. But they are not identical. How can that be? she wondered.

I think of it this way: Apart from the standard "anything you like is a good wine" response, I have found that there are many types of palates, especially among those for whom wine is a profession. When I sit down and taste with an extremely knowledgeable group of tasters, there is always a spectrum of opinion.

On one end of the spectrum will be wines that virtually everyone agrees are flawed. Flaws are usually bacterial, resulting from mistakes in the winemaking or contamination during barrel aging. On the other end of the spectrum will be the rare wine that everyone loves. But most wines, even the good ones, will generate mixed opinions.

Winemakers are used to tasting wines from pre-fermentation through bottling. That is quite different from most of us. They are also interested in the technical details of a wine, and often they will be more critical of certain flaws (such as the leathery flavors generated by brettanomyces, a yeast) than most consumers.

Those in wholesale and retail evaluate wines in terms of their sale-ability. They are looking for wines that fit a certain niche in their catalog, store or wine list. Sommeliers especially like to discover unusual, unique varieties, often from obscure corners of the wine world. They are more likely to shun standard grapes and be especially critical of popular, mass-produced wines.

Wine writers and reviewers are difficult to categorize. I speak only for myself when I say I seek out those wines that best demonstrate typicity, specificity, clarity, elegance, polish, depth and balance. If the wine is varietal, I want it to taste like the varietal. If it is from a specific place, I want to taste something unique that is derived from that place. If a wine is designated by vineyard, clone or block; if it is labeled old vine or winemaker's select or reserve, I think it should justify that verbiage by showing me something specific and special. It's OK by me if a wine is light, as long as it is not thin; elegant, but not wimpy; powerful, but not brutal; dense, but not monolithic. The qualities are more easily found at higher price points, but the real treasures are the inexpensive wines that stand out from their peers.

Here are a few that I hope you'll enjoy. I quote suggested retail, but you'll often find them on sale for less.

Acrobat 2009 Pinot Gris ($12). From King Estate, loaded with pretty pear fruit.

Lee Family Farm 2009 Verdelho ($15). Mail order only, but a big, fruity, spicy wine from a rarely seen Portuguese grape. (www.morganwinery.com/index.php/2009-lee-family-farm-verdelho)

Cupcake Vineyards 2008 Chardonnay ($14, but I've seen it for $9). Floral, toasty, full-bodied.

Mutt Lynch 2008 Unleashed Chardonnay ($14). Juicy, fruity, ripe and forward.

Mutt Lynch 2007 Portrait of a Mutt Zinfandel ($14). Spicy berries, firm acidity.

Kendall-Jackson 2007 Vintner's Reserve Zinfandel ($15). Round, cherry/berry fruit.

Pedroncelli 2007 Bushnell Vineyard Zinfandel ($18). Excellent Dry Creek Valley single-vineyard offering from this longtime value zin producer.

Paul Gregutt is the author of "Washington Wines & Wineries." Find him at www.paulgregutt.com or write to paulgwine@me.com.