Vineyard Place rates 89-92 points
Wine ratings. Are they good for the us, or are they taking the fun & discovery out of wine drinking? Yes to the latter.
You have seen them: Wine Spectator gave this wine an 88, Robert Parker gave that wine a 93, Wine Enthusiast gave another 92 points, Stephen Tanzer rates one at 84, and Wilfred Wong gives everything 88+ points (he does work for BevMo -- of course they want you to buy everything -- why would they let him rate lower than that?).
So what? What does the rating really tell you? It's a snapshot of what the wine critic thought of the wine, in a familiar 100 point scale. That's it. It doesn't mean that you'll like the wine. Unless you know that your palate is exactly the same as one of the critics (very unlikely), the score should mean as much to you as your unused stock options for pets.com
Let's back up and talk a bit of history. Wine critics have been around for centuries -- writing guides, newsletters, and hosting classes. But it wasn't until the 20th century that any kind of "grade" was given to a particular wine. Those grades took the form of stars (one to four, usually), or more commonly a 20 point rating system.
It wasn't until Robert Parker burst onto the scene in 1982 that wine writing would be forever changed. Robert had correctly identified a fundamental problem with wine writers: they were so tangled with the industry that you couldn't trust their reviews. They were accepting dinners, and trips to wine country, and free bottles so often that you had to question their objectiveness.
Parker started his "Wine Advocate" newsletter with the explicit intent of becoming the Ralph Nader of the wine world. He would not accept any of these gifts, and he would pay his own way through the wines he tasted. His reviews, often occupying pages for each of his reviews, became the gold standard for wine reviews. Along the way, he added the 100 point scale, meant solely to use as a quick comparison to like wines. And in doing so he forever changed the way people buy wine.
Having done a lot of research on Parker, I know that he never intended for the score to be the focus. We are kind of an ADD nation -- looking for the quick answer or the bottom line, rushing to the next shiny object to focus our attention. Parker still writes his ultra lengthy reviews for The Wine Advocate, and is a very successful author as well: He penned the definitive guides to Bordeaux, Burgundy, and the Rhone. But most people likely have never read any of that. They just know that Parker gave this wine a 92, so it must be worth buying.
His 100 point system became so popular and so powerful that prices started to move up or down instantly after review. The other players in the wine writing world had to co-opt it. Now, everyone has a 100 point system. The only difference is that Parker still writes exhaustively about the wines he tastes, while the others throw a Zagat-type paragraph with 3 or 4 adjectives to accompany their score. Sadly, the score has become the focus.
This column is too short to go into all the reasons why the scoring system is bad, but suffice to say that scores can't be compared to one another; that is, a 90 point Cabernet is not the same as a 90 point Chenin Blanc (the first a good score for a Cab, the latter a great score for a Chenin). And, a Parker 90 is not the same as a Wine Spectator 90. Certain grape varietals never achieve the classic scores of 95+. You won't see a Pinot Grigio there or a Zinfandel. Why? If someone makes a perfect example of a Zin, shouldn't it warrant a score of close to 100? Only the premier grapes or regions get to play in that exclusive sandbox. Which begs the question, "if certain varietals have a handicap, how useful is a global scoring system for comparison?"
Everything is relative. Relative to the person tasting & his/her palate, relative to expertise, relative to the implicit benchmark used to grade against. Everything is subjective. There is no piece of paper you dip into a wine that gives you a reading of the score. Even the scoring system has changed. Parker used to give points for color, for balance, for bouquet, etc., adding all the parts to get the final score. Now, he magically pulls the number out of the air and with the stroke of his pen (or mouse) he makes or breaks a wine.
I'll go into more detail about scoring and show you all some interesting data behind it next month that will make you question motives and usefulness. I humbly suggest you ignore the score when looking at these publications and focus on the tasting notes. That's where you will start to realize whether or not a particular wine might be a good match for your palate. Better yet, temper all of that and explore some new wines yourself. The more you drink, the more you'll know your palate. You'll know whether you like or despise Pinot from Oregon, and whether anyone can make a great Cabernet in Paso Robles. Once you start to unlock those skills, you'll never need the score crutch again.
You have seen them: Wine Spectator gave this wine an 88, Robert Parker gave that wine a 93, Wine Enthusiast gave another 92 points, Stephen Tanzer rates one at 84, and Wilfred Wong gives everything 88+ points (he does work for BevMo -- of course they want you to buy everything -- why would they let him rate lower than that?).
So what? What does the rating really tell you? It's a snapshot of what the wine critic thought of the wine, in a familiar 100 point scale. That's it. It doesn't mean that you'll like the wine. Unless you know that your palate is exactly the same as one of the critics (very unlikely), the score should mean as much to you as your unused stock options for pets.com
Let's back up and talk a bit of history. Wine critics have been around for centuries -- writing guides, newsletters, and hosting classes. But it wasn't until the 20th century that any kind of "grade" was given to a particular wine. Those grades took the form of stars (one to four, usually), or more commonly a 20 point rating system.
It wasn't until Robert Parker burst onto the scene in 1982 that wine writing would be forever changed. Robert had correctly identified a fundamental problem with wine writers: they were so tangled with the industry that you couldn't trust their reviews. They were accepting dinners, and trips to wine country, and free bottles so often that you had to question their objectiveness.
Parker started his "Wine Advocate" newsletter with the explicit intent of becoming the Ralph Nader of the wine world. He would not accept any of these gifts, and he would pay his own way through the wines he tasted. His reviews, often occupying pages for each of his reviews, became the gold standard for wine reviews. Along the way, he added the 100 point scale, meant solely to use as a quick comparison to like wines. And in doing so he forever changed the way people buy wine.
Having done a lot of research on Parker, I know that he never intended for the score to be the focus. We are kind of an ADD nation -- looking for the quick answer or the bottom line, rushing to the next shiny object to focus our attention. Parker still writes his ultra lengthy reviews for The Wine Advocate, and is a very successful author as well: He penned the definitive guides to Bordeaux, Burgundy, and the Rhone. But most people likely have never read any of that. They just know that Parker gave this wine a 92, so it must be worth buying.
His 100 point system became so popular and so powerful that prices started to move up or down instantly after review. The other players in the wine writing world had to co-opt it. Now, everyone has a 100 point system. The only difference is that Parker still writes exhaustively about the wines he tastes, while the others throw a Zagat-type paragraph with 3 or 4 adjectives to accompany their score. Sadly, the score has become the focus.
This column is too short to go into all the reasons why the scoring system is bad, but suffice to say that scores can't be compared to one another; that is, a 90 point Cabernet is not the same as a 90 point Chenin Blanc (the first a good score for a Cab, the latter a great score for a Chenin). And, a Parker 90 is not the same as a Wine Spectator 90. Certain grape varietals never achieve the classic scores of 95+. You won't see a Pinot Grigio there or a Zinfandel. Why? If someone makes a perfect example of a Zin, shouldn't it warrant a score of close to 100? Only the premier grapes or regions get to play in that exclusive sandbox. Which begs the question, "if certain varietals have a handicap, how useful is a global scoring system for comparison?"
Everything is relative. Relative to the person tasting & his/her palate, relative to expertise, relative to the implicit benchmark used to grade against. Everything is subjective. There is no piece of paper you dip into a wine that gives you a reading of the score. Even the scoring system has changed. Parker used to give points for color, for balance, for bouquet, etc., adding all the parts to get the final score. Now, he magically pulls the number out of the air and with the stroke of his pen (or mouse) he makes or breaks a wine.
I'll go into more detail about scoring and show you all some interesting data behind it next month that will make you question motives and usefulness. I humbly suggest you ignore the score when looking at these publications and focus on the tasting notes. That's where you will start to realize whether or not a particular wine might be a good match for your palate. Better yet, temper all of that and explore some new wines yourself. The more you drink, the more you'll know your palate. You'll know whether you like or despise Pinot from Oregon, and whether anyone can make a great Cabernet in Paso Robles. Once you start to unlock those skills, you'll never need the score crutch again.
posted by The Cask Room, Mike Kallay at
8:13 AM
1 Comments:
Very interesting Mike. Especially the fact that certain wines never get the highest scores.
Post a Comment
<< Home