From Greatest Wine In the World to Garbage?

February 24, 2010 in Wine Scoring | 3 comments

A “guest” posting by Scott. I need to get this guy out here more often.

WS’s Harvey Steiman posted a piece on Feb 23rd discussing his recent surprise while tasting the ’05 Ch. de Pez. I’ve had this wine many times, not the ’05, but the ’88, ’89, and ’90. They were classic wines back then, and I don’t know about now, but I have a hunch about their current style. When Steiman first rated this wine, probably back in ’07 or ’08, he scored it an 88. In his recent tasting he liked it so much that he said he might start drinking Bordeaux again and scored it a 90. I know that there really isn’t any difference between an 88 and a 90 score, e.g., it’s got to be something like 88 +/-2 or 3 or 4; an 88 is not absolute, exact. However, for the critic and the consumer a score of 88 is 88 +/-0, or, it IS absolute in their minds.

The crime here is most consumers won’t give much consideration to wines scoring less than 90, so Steiman’s original score of 88 probably hurt de Pez’s sales in the US, but now a couple years later he scores it a 90 and says he might start drinking Bordeaux again because of it. Wine critic scoring is 100% subjective and not at all precise, and when those imprecise scores are around critical break points, like 90, then it can have considerable impact on sales.

A second example of the imprecision and total subjectivity in wine scoring, on Feb 10th WS’s James Suckling reported on a group tasting, which he was a part of, of the ’97 Harlan Estates cab. When this wine was released 10 years ago Suckling, James Laube, and presumably others gave it a score of 100. It was a perfect wine. The best cabernet in the world. Now at this recent tasting nobody liked it and Suckling said he couldn’t even give it a score of 90. Apparently there have been other critics with a similar experience. How in the hell does that happen? One camp might say big CA cabs can’t age – they taste great young but you better drink it in 5-8 years. Let me tell you that wines like Harlan Estates’ are marketed with the impression that they will age beautifully (especially the “epic” ’97 vintage) for decades and with price tags to prove it.

Another camp, apparently his own, Suckling alludes to in his closing paragraph – “But some things you can’t explain about wine. That’s one thing I can assure you after drinking and rating the stuff for almost 30 years. Great wines are all about emotions, just like love and hate.” – is that wine is not something so easily quantified and pinned down with a score. Wine is about the moment and the times, and how we connect with it emotionally. He equates it to love and hate for god sakes so how can scores mean anything?

Tags: , , , ,

  1. Andrew on February 25, 2010 at 9:27 AM

    Scott – I agree with there being a flaw with the concept of scoring wines in general, though the blame lies in two camps; critics AND the buying public. As much as I’d like to think that Americans like to read, it seems as though bullet points and summations are the only things short enough for people to read. Tasting notes and extended reviews which go into detail on production methods and winery history are rarely read with much attention much less passion.

    I am re-reading some of my favorite wine books this week, including Kermit Lynch’s “adventures on the wine route”, Patrick Matthew’s “real wine”, and on and on… Going over the history of some of my favorite producers makes me want to seek out and retaste vintages that I am certain have aged gracefully and become even better than when I first tried them. The question begs, however; how many of us can wait to produce wines that need time to develop over years? In the world of new producers working on their first few vintages, unless there is a large bankroll behind you, classics don’t pay right away. Right? I am torn on this subject since I am driven to produce wines that are as natural and age worthy as can be. But, do I over extend myself and prepare a less labour intensive and fresh wine to be consumed and pay some bills in the meantime?

    Now Harlan and the like, I am more than happy to see their wines falling apart. Not that I wish any ill will upon any winemaker. I am also happy to see some 100 point wines not “worthy” of a 90 now. I like to see the wine critics have to readjust their notion of what a “perfect” wine is and will be in the future. I think it opens doors for winemakers who are making wines that speak on a personal language. Pandering to a personal taste rather than the mass market. Like Cotat, or the Peyrauds in Bandol, making wines that seems natural to them and just keeps getting better and more unique as the years go by.

    I am anxious to see how the wines of our future change with age. Perhaps we won’t have the 50 year wines, built to last.

  2. scott on February 25, 2010 at 1:38 PM

    Andrew –
    I think there is a misconception out there (mainly in the US) about wines that may be or are known to be age worthy – that they don’t taste good young and you have to wait 10, 20, 30 years before they do taste good. Wines that are age worthy don’t improve with age, they change with age, and they are good young and they remain good with time. That’s unless you’re an esteemed modern critic who want wines with no angles. They want’em lush and plush from the beginning. I think the person who appreciates the emotional and intellectual concepts associated with watching a wine age will also enjoy the wine for what it is at its different stages.

    Unfortunately, even with the example of the 100pt Harlan, and I’m sure there are many other examples, I don’t think the critics will readjust their notion. What I thought was odd in JS’s blog about the Harlan was that neither he nor JL (who posted several comments) offered up any explanation for how they could have made such a mistake.

  3. Andrew on February 27, 2010 at 6:02 PM

    I agree wholeheartedly with the assessment about the drinkability (to borrow a phrase from a major beer conglomerate) of ageable wines. In fact, budget willing, I would love to be one of those people who could afford to taste my favorite wines throughout different stages of their lives. I have been fortunate enough in my career to taste some of my favorites in various stages, and as such, it is nice to be able to compare current releases and speculate upon the older vintages in their youth.

    One interesting note is that much of the 2007 Bordeaux is drinking perfectly well right now, and at a recent tasting it was dismissed out of hand. Shmeh, I will wait until the 08’s come out and drink the 07 for a song.

    It is amusing any critic go back on their initial assessment. No explanation needed for a good laugh.

Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *