Context - how good decisions are made - context
How good wine decisions are made is rarely straightforward. Context helps determine which interpretations are plausible in practice – and where misunderstandings arise. This article explores applications, borderline cases, and typical misinterpretations – and refers to the canon (how-good-decisions-are-made-canon) as a conceptual anchor. The focus is on observation rather than judgment, and on the question of when patience, aeration, or temperature truly help – and when they don't.
Wine choices are often understood as technical or taste-related decisions. In this view, they are merely a means to an end. In reality, decisions in wine are less about a single point in time than about a process. They have an effect over time, not in the moment.
A wine decision therefore describes not only what is done, but also when and under what conditions. It assigns responsibility along a timeline. Every decision changes the direction of development, even if its effect initially remains invisible.
It is misleading to think that decisions can be evaluated in isolation. Individual steps appear sensible or questionable depending on the context under consideration. Decisions gain their significance within their context, not as isolated actions.
Many decisions in winemaking are not aimed at achieving a specific effect, but rather at limiting risk. The goal is to enable stability, clarity, and development without rigidly defining the wine's character. In this context, decision-making means keeping options open.
This logic exists in the tension between control and trust. Premature commitment can stifle development, while late intervention can jeopardize it. Decisions oscillate between intervention and acceptance.
In our perception, decisions are often read backwards. A wine either impresses or disappoints, and individual steps are subsequently labeled as right or wrong. This retrospective view overlooks the open-ended nature of the process.
Wine choices are always decisions made under uncertainty. They are based on experience, observation, and assumption, not on certainty. Their goal is not perfection, but rather longevity.
Time is also a decision. Waiting, delaying, or releasing the wine changes it just as much as active intervention. Not deciding is also a form of decision, with its own consequences.
These decisions usually remain invisible to the market. The result becomes visible, not the process. Transparency can contextualize this process without justifying it.
Problems arise when decisions are interpreted normatively. Certain paths are considered right, others wrong. This simplification ignores context, objectives, and initial situation.
Properly understood, wine choices are not recipes. They are responses to a specific situation at a specific time. Their quality is not revealed in the method, but in the coherence of the result.
Wine choices structure development without defining it. They give the wine direction, not form.