At last week's 2016 Colorado Governor's Cup wine competition I, in my capacity with the Colorado Wine Industry Development Board, organized a wine tasting I'm calling "The Judgment of Denver." For those that do not know, in 1976 British wine merchant Steve Spurrier organized a blind tasting with French wine judges (wine journalists, critics, sommeliers, merchants or winemakers). The wines were broken into two flights; in the first flight, the judges rated 10 Chardonnay, 6 from California and 4 from Burgundy and in the second flight, they rated 10 Cabernet Sauvignon-based red wines, 6 from California and 4 from Bordeaux, France. In each of these flights a California wine, a then relatively little known wine region, was declared the winner. Stag's Leap Wine Cellars' 1973 S.L.V. Cabernet Sauvignon was the top red and Chateau Montelena's 1973 Chardonnay bested some of France's best – and most expensive – wines. The results were published to the world in TIME magazine and forever changed the American – and global – wine industry.
Each year at the Governor's Cup we do a calibration tasting to have the judges calibrate their palate/scores to benchmark wine (that benchmark isn't always high). This year, I decided to model the calibration portion of the competition after the 1976 "Judgment of Paris" because it was the 40th anniversary of that original blind tasting and Warren Winiarski, founder of Stag's Leap Wine Cellars, was once again one of the judges. These two facts seemed like good enough reason to reenact the tasting once more – multiple retastings of the original wines and a New Jersey vs. French wine tasting have been reported on many times.
At the Denver tasting, 16 wine judges1 (wine journalists, critics, sommeliers, merchants or winemakers) from around the U.S. tasted Colorado wines against French and California wines in a blind setting. The French and California wines selected were from the same producers as in 1976 including the winning producers: Chateau Montelena and Stag's Leap Wine Cellars. Unlike the Judgment of Princeton, no First Growth Bordeaux were in the mix. Hundred dollar French and California wines are worthy enough competition! Prices of the French and California wines were $30–$110/bottle. I selected Colorado wines that would not appear in the Governor's Cup competition later that day. Prices of the Colorado wines were $15–$50/bottle The results were as similarly surprising as the original tasting. Although, the winner in each category was a California wine (Chalone Vineyard for the whites and Ridge Vineyards Estate Cabernet Sauvignon for the reds) CO wines are at the same level qualitatively.
A website devoted to Colorado Wine and beyond.
Showing posts with label Scores. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scores. Show all posts
Thursday, July 28, 2016
Friday, May 22, 2015
The Quest for Certainty Blocks the Search for Meaning...
"The quest for certainty blocks the quest for meaning. Uncertainty is the very condition to impel man to unfold his powers." - Erich Fromm, 1947
That quote from Fromm's Man for Himself: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics is a peak into his into his views on human nature, but as I read it the other day the first thing that popped into my mind was the 100-pt wine rating system. I know, I know, this horse has long been dead. Perhaps this was my first thought because I actually found myself defending the system over the weekend. My friend, Jeff Siegel, made the statement that the 100-pt system is useless. I countered that it is quite useful as a means to convey information about one person's perception of a wine to another. However, I acknowledged that the system is quite flawed. Jeff, in all his wisdom, correctly pointed out that 'flawed' implies it can be corrected.
There is no way that this system of using numbers to portray an authoritative characterization of a wine's quality can be fixed to correct the false sense of certainty it has created. The true meaning of a wine cannot be replaced by a number, yet the wine world in which we live has been corrupted by the quest for perfection. Yes, information is conveyed but at what price?
There are those consumers and critics alike who understand that a wine's true worth is not found in the pedigree of the cultivar, or the reputation of the region, or the celebrity of the winemaker, but in the collection of traits that leads to an experience. A number draws a sand in the line; Whoever is not with me is against me (Matthew 12:30). Wow, I never thought I'd quote the Bible on this blog! Only by erasing the number from the equation can we erase this false dichotomy of good and evil, or right and wrong. Wine is neither good nor evil. Wine is communal. You have the right to love a bottle I can't stand.
Wine is meant to be enjoyed, shared, and celebrated. Arguments are part of the fun, but the quest for certainty and the quest for high scores has replaced the true meaning of wine for too many consumers, critics, and winemakers. Only naked from certainty that numbers imply, can we then drive forward to experience wine in its true beauty.
That quote from Fromm's Man for Himself: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics is a peak into his into his views on human nature, but as I read it the other day the first thing that popped into my mind was the 100-pt wine rating system. I know, I know, this horse has long been dead. Perhaps this was my first thought because I actually found myself defending the system over the weekend. My friend, Jeff Siegel, made the statement that the 100-pt system is useless. I countered that it is quite useful as a means to convey information about one person's perception of a wine to another. However, I acknowledged that the system is quite flawed. Jeff, in all his wisdom, correctly pointed out that 'flawed' implies it can be corrected.
There is no way that this system of using numbers to portray an authoritative characterization of a wine's quality can be fixed to correct the false sense of certainty it has created. The true meaning of a wine cannot be replaced by a number, yet the wine world in which we live has been corrupted by the quest for perfection. Yes, information is conveyed but at what price?
There are those consumers and critics alike who understand that a wine's true worth is not found in the pedigree of the cultivar, or the reputation of the region, or the celebrity of the winemaker, but in the collection of traits that leads to an experience. A number draws a sand in the line; Whoever is not with me is against me (Matthew 12:30). Wow, I never thought I'd quote the Bible on this blog! Only by erasing the number from the equation can we erase this false dichotomy of good and evil, or right and wrong. Wine is neither good nor evil. Wine is communal. You have the right to love a bottle I can't stand.
Wine is meant to be enjoyed, shared, and celebrated. Arguments are part of the fun, but the quest for certainty and the quest for high scores has replaced the true meaning of wine for too many consumers, critics, and winemakers. Only naked from certainty that numbers imply, can we then drive forward to experience wine in its true beauty.
Thursday, October 9, 2014
Matt Kramer got it wrong about bullies who put down wine
Without wine lore, and wine tasting, and wine talk, and wine labels, and, yes, wine writing and rating—the whole elaborate idea of wine—we would still get drunk, but we would be merely drunk. The language of wine appreciation is there not because wine is such a special subtle challenge to our discernment but because without the elaborate language—without the idea of wine, held up and regularly polished—it would all be about the same, or taste that way. —Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker
Two days ago, in Wine Spectator, Matt Kramer penned a polemic against nameless skeptics of the sensory value of wine. In Kramer's defense, he attempted to use an article by Adam Gopnik (yes, I misspelled his name (twice) in a comment over on the Jackson Family Wines blog, and for that I apologize) in the The New Yorker as evidence this anti-intellectualism bullying. The problems with him basing his condemnation on Gopnik's article are twofold. First, the article is more than ten years old. If you haven't read it, I strongly suggest that you do so. Yes, it reads as if it were written yesterday (or maybe tomorrow) and that is the sign of a good writer. But nevertheless it was written at a different point along the wine industry continuum and was actually an editorial on the 2004 state of wine prompted by William Echikson's book, Noble Rot. Second, and more important, Kramer completely missed the point of Gopnik's article. Kramer chose to quote Gopnik out of context. He should have started his article with the full quote that I've provided above. Gopnik actually accomplished what Kramer was attempting to do by making the case that wine talk and wine description are an integral "part of what lets the experience happen."
Two days ago, in Wine Spectator, Matt Kramer penned a polemic against nameless skeptics of the sensory value of wine. In Kramer's defense, he attempted to use an article by Adam Gopnik (yes, I misspelled his name (twice) in a comment over on the Jackson Family Wines blog, and for that I apologize) in the The New Yorker as evidence this anti-intellectualism bullying. The problems with him basing his condemnation on Gopnik's article are twofold. First, the article is more than ten years old. If you haven't read it, I strongly suggest that you do so. Yes, it reads as if it were written yesterday (or maybe tomorrow) and that is the sign of a good writer. But nevertheless it was written at a different point along the wine industry continuum and was actually an editorial on the 2004 state of wine prompted by William Echikson's book, Noble Rot. Second, and more important, Kramer completely missed the point of Gopnik's article. Kramer chose to quote Gopnik out of context. He should have started his article with the full quote that I've provided above. Gopnik actually accomplished what Kramer was attempting to do by making the case that wine talk and wine description are an integral "part of what lets the experience happen."
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Dr. Oldman won't shut up about the Wine Bloggers Conference
Forgive me. I tried to talk him out of it, but he was insistent on chiming in again on the Wine Bloggers Conference.
Oh boy did I miss out by not attending the Wine Bloggers Conference this year. I saw a few bloggers complain about one of the sessions that was dubbed the, "grand-fatherly white male traditional print writer" session. That sounds like the perfect seminar to me, so I investigated a little more. Turns out that there was a second session dedicated to other older white male experts! Hot diggity! I was totally off in my initial assessment. Earlier this week, I watched a Youtube video of another seminar at the Wine Blogger's Conference titled, "How the Pros Taste." Oh, this gem could have been simply titled, "How to be Professional." I expect well-organized workshops at the Frontiers of Computational Physics Conference (which by the way is in Zurich next June if you're interested), but not at a conference devoted to the lowly art of blogging.
Oh boy did I miss out by not attending the Wine Bloggers Conference this year. I saw a few bloggers complain about one of the sessions that was dubbed the, "grand-fatherly white male traditional print writer" session. That sounds like the perfect seminar to me, so I investigated a little more. Turns out that there was a second session dedicated to other older white male experts! Hot diggity! I was totally off in my initial assessment. Earlier this week, I watched a Youtube video of another seminar at the Wine Blogger's Conference titled, "How the Pros Taste." Oh, this gem could have been simply titled, "How to be Professional." I expect well-organized workshops at the Frontiers of Computational Physics Conference (which by the way is in Zurich next June if you're interested), but not at a conference devoted to the lowly art of blogging.
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Dr. Harry Oldman has a Surprise Holiday Interview...
Dr. Harry Oldman generously unwraps a spectacular interview for us on this Boxing Day.
Kyle, as an old white man with a beard, I felt that it was only appropriate that I give you and your readers a present this year, but I couldn't quite figure out what would be a good gift. Then it dawned on me! I'm friends with a moderately notorious wine critic and we talk fairly often about wine and life in general. He was kind enough to answer the kind of tough questions no one has ever had the balls to ask him. I felt like Katie Couric! He didn't know that I was going to publish the interview, and I don’t want to name names because I don’t have his permission, so I'll just refer to him as SHhh (as in I'll never tell!). You can guess, but I'll never reveal my source!
HARRY: Hey, buddy! Thanks for agreeing to answer some questions. I know how much you hate answering questions, so this really means a lot to me!
SHhh: No problem, anything for you Harry. I actually love to answer questions, almost as much as asking questions! I write for the consumer, first, foremost and always. So when my readers engage with me, I make it a point to always respond. I learn so much from my readers! Blogs and bulletin boards are supposed to be back-and-forths, right? I mean, we live in this new age of participatory journalism. It is not uncommon for me to comment on other blogs, too!
Kyle, as an old white man with a beard, I felt that it was only appropriate that I give you and your readers a present this year, but I couldn't quite figure out what would be a good gift. Then it dawned on me! I'm friends with a moderately notorious wine critic and we talk fairly often about wine and life in general. He was kind enough to answer the kind of tough questions no one has ever had the balls to ask him. I felt like Katie Couric! He didn't know that I was going to publish the interview, and I don’t want to name names because I don’t have his permission, so I'll just refer to him as SHhh (as in I'll never tell!). You can guess, but I'll never reveal my source!
HARRY: Hey, buddy! Thanks for agreeing to answer some questions. I know how much you hate answering questions, so this really means a lot to me!
SHhh: No problem, anything for you Harry. I actually love to answer questions, almost as much as asking questions! I write for the consumer, first, foremost and always. So when my readers engage with me, I make it a point to always respond. I learn so much from my readers! Blogs and bulletin boards are supposed to be back-and-forths, right? I mean, we live in this new age of participatory journalism. It is not uncommon for me to comment on other blogs, too!
Friday, October 18, 2013
Why wine reviewers should be more like book reviewers
Yesterday, Tom Wark wrote about the differences between wine and book reviewers. The article was insightful, but I took exception to his basic premise that "it doesn’t take much time to produce a wine review." It doesn't take much time to produce a review of anything. I can look at a car for 30 seconds and estimate how fast it is, what kind of fuel efficiency you should expect and tell you if I like its lines. But how much time a critic takes to conduct a review is related to the thoroughness of the assessment. Thirty seconds with a car does nothing to explore the comfort or practicality of the automobile. A thorough assessment is not a guarantee of a quality assessment, but it does make an thoughtful review more likely.
It is an industry standard that wine reviewers spend 5-10 minutes (at most) swirling, sniffing, sipping and spitting wine in a sterile (not in the medical sense) setting. Yes, most good critics will also visit the regions and meet with the producers they critique to develop a context for the wines they assess. Yet, the official reviews come from relatively short periods of time spent with the actual wine and in the presence of dozens of other wines also being assessed. The resulting wine reviews are meant to assist consumers with their purchase decisions. I am not ardently against tasting notes and despite my disdain for the 100-pt system I understand its purpose and relative usefulness.
The thing that irks me about the standard system for wine reviews and pointed out by Tom Wark, is that there is no need for a wine critic to spend more than 10 minutes with a wine. Most consumers I know do not spend only 10 minutes with wine swirling, sniffing, sipping, spitting and repeating. They consume the wine. Often with food and rarely in the presence of other wines. There may be no need to spend more than 60 seconds with a wine, but there is a benefit to the consumer when a critic gives a wine the attention its users give it. As I commented on Tom's blog, [t]asting a wine with food can be important. Tasting wine at different points in its lifetime can be important. Spending 2 minutes with 20 wines is like reading the prologue of 20 books and stating definitively what happens in the last chapter of each and proclaiming which book is the most well-written!
Yes, an experienced book reviewer can probably give a good estimate of what's a book about by looking at the author's name, the publisher and reading the prologue or first chapter. That is exactly what wine critics do. Some do it quite well, but none are perfect. I understand this process because I often do the same thing. For those of you (if any) who have read my blog from its inception will know that wine reviews have become increasingly missing from my posts. Sure, I still write about specific wines, and sometimes I tasted them in the way I am critiquing here. But most of the few reviews I post are of wines I drink at home, over the course of a few hours, with and without food. That's how most wine consumers drink.
I really like Tom's suggestion of the long-form wine review. I know that is not going to happen with the major wine publications because they depend on volume. More reviews equals more points. More points equates to more readers. More readers means more revenue. But perhaps alternative critics might be able to utilize Tom's suggestion. In fact, more writers/bloggers are adding in the story of the vintner or the land in lieu of lists of aromas and flavors that you may or may not be able to detect in a wine. Two of my favorite writers doing this are Alder Yarrow, of Vinography, and RH Drexel, of Loam Baby. They both tell the story of wine differently, but each does so with enthusiasm and interesting writing. They add value to their writing when they spend more than 60 seconds with a wine or winemaker (despite Alder also having a tendency for many short reviews from mass tastings...).
Wine reviewers should spend more time with wines they are reviewing just like book reviewers spend hours, if not days, with the books they review. They should aim to be more than just reviewers, but actual writers. Just as with a book, not all the subtleties of a wine are noticeable at first. Consumers could benefit from the greater insight and context of a wine gained from more thorough assessments. Wine reviews don't need to be longer, but they should be!
It is an industry standard that wine reviewers spend 5-10 minutes (at most) swirling, sniffing, sipping and spitting wine in a sterile (not in the medical sense) setting. Yes, most good critics will also visit the regions and meet with the producers they critique to develop a context for the wines they assess. Yet, the official reviews come from relatively short periods of time spent with the actual wine and in the presence of dozens of other wines also being assessed. The resulting wine reviews are meant to assist consumers with their purchase decisions. I am not ardently against tasting notes and despite my disdain for the 100-pt system I understand its purpose and relative usefulness.
The thing that irks me about the standard system for wine reviews and pointed out by Tom Wark, is that there is no need for a wine critic to spend more than 10 minutes with a wine. Most consumers I know do not spend only 10 minutes with wine swirling, sniffing, sipping, spitting and repeating. They consume the wine. Often with food and rarely in the presence of other wines. There may be no need to spend more than 60 seconds with a wine, but there is a benefit to the consumer when a critic gives a wine the attention its users give it. As I commented on Tom's blog, [t]asting a wine with food can be important. Tasting wine at different points in its lifetime can be important. Spending 2 minutes with 20 wines is like reading the prologue of 20 books and stating definitively what happens in the last chapter of each and proclaiming which book is the most well-written!
Yes, an experienced book reviewer can probably give a good estimate of what's a book about by looking at the author's name, the publisher and reading the prologue or first chapter. That is exactly what wine critics do. Some do it quite well, but none are perfect. I understand this process because I often do the same thing. For those of you (if any) who have read my blog from its inception will know that wine reviews have become increasingly missing from my posts. Sure, I still write about specific wines, and sometimes I tasted them in the way I am critiquing here. But most of the few reviews I post are of wines I drink at home, over the course of a few hours, with and without food. That's how most wine consumers drink.
I really like Tom's suggestion of the long-form wine review. I know that is not going to happen with the major wine publications because they depend on volume. More reviews equals more points. More points equates to more readers. More readers means more revenue. But perhaps alternative critics might be able to utilize Tom's suggestion. In fact, more writers/bloggers are adding in the story of the vintner or the land in lieu of lists of aromas and flavors that you may or may not be able to detect in a wine. Two of my favorite writers doing this are Alder Yarrow, of Vinography, and RH Drexel, of Loam Baby. They both tell the story of wine differently, but each does so with enthusiasm and interesting writing. They add value to their writing when they spend more than 60 seconds with a wine or winemaker (despite Alder also having a tendency for many short reviews from mass tastings...).
Wine reviewers should spend more time with wines they are reviewing just like book reviewers spend hours, if not days, with the books they review. They should aim to be more than just reviewers, but actual writers. Just as with a book, not all the subtleties of a wine are noticeable at first. Consumers could benefit from the greater insight and context of a wine gained from more thorough assessments. Wine reviews don't need to be longer, but they should be!
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Maybe Steve Heimoff was right (I might have lost my mind...)
After giving it a week of thought, I'm going to argue something with which, on the surface, I adamantly disagree. Last week, my digital buddy, Steve Heimoff, wrote a blog post titled, "Saying Goodbye to the Golden Age of Wine Writing." His thesis was that with the rise of the "Age of Digital Information" (i.e., wine blogs) wine writers are finding it more and more difficult to earn a living writing about wine. He claims that the world of wine writing is no longer the utopia it was when he got into this profession and made a name for himself (I'd argue he actually has made his name via his blog and not as the California Editor for Wine Enthusiast Magazine). David White penned a great response to Steve's assertions and claimed that things are actually getting better in the world of wine writing. I wholeheartedly agree with David, but I want to take a deeper look into Steve's post.
Monday, September 9, 2013
John Madden the wine critic...
Football season is finally upon us. For many of you (including me), yesterday was spent parked in front of the TV with a beer in hand. The entire state of Colorado is bursting with anticipation for a Super Bowl run after Peyton Manning and the Broncos thrashed the defending champions on Thursday. However, I grew up in Wisconsin so naturally I'm a Green Bay Packers fan. In fact, ever since 1998 I have actively rooted against the Broncos. If the Broncos aren't going to finish 0-16 this year, I'd like nothing more than to see the Packers beat the Broncos in the Super Bowl in New York. I'd be in a better mood today had the Packers beaten the 49ers, but thinking about a Green Bay Super Bowl victory over the Broncos keeps me smiling.
You may be wondering what football has to do with wine. Bear with me as I get there. Along with the beginning of the NFL season, perhaps the most popular sports video game, Madden 25, was released recently. In the game, every single player is given a numerical rating - from 1 to 100. Sound familiar to wine yet? Thinking about how and why human beings are given such subjective ratings got me thinking about how the video game is like the wine review game. Is Calvin Johnson equivalent to a bottle of 2009 Château Latour (WS 99)? Is Anquan Boldin like a bottle of 2007 Canyon Wind Cellars IV (WS 88)? Which bottle of red blend or which receiver would you rather have had yesterday?
You may be wondering what football has to do with wine. Bear with me as I get there. Along with the beginning of the NFL season, perhaps the most popular sports video game, Madden 25, was released recently. In the game, every single player is given a numerical rating - from 1 to 100. Sound familiar to wine yet? Thinking about how and why human beings are given such subjective ratings got me thinking about how the video game is like the wine review game. Is Calvin Johnson equivalent to a bottle of 2009 Château Latour (WS 99)? Is Anquan Boldin like a bottle of 2007 Canyon Wind Cellars IV (WS 88)? Which bottle of red blend or which receiver would you rather have had yesterday?
Friday, August 30, 2013
Is the 100-pt system more confusing than helpful?
Proponents of the 100-pt system for often claim that the main advantage of the system is that it provides consumers with a clear, concise and relative measure of a wine's intrinsic quality. The problem with that statement is that a wine's intrinsic quality is completely subjective. Every person is born with a unique palate and a distinct set of experiences from which to conjure aroma and flavor comparisons from memory (how else does one know what an "intense sensation of ... gunflint" tastes like? Those experiences also make relative scoring inherently flawed. Do you enjoy green tobacco or do you find it off-putting? Acidity, oh don't start a debate about acidity amongst wine writers! Sure, one person's opinion is easily defensible, but when two (or more) prominent wine publications diverge dramatically on their assessment of a wine (more often than you would expect), the result for consumers could be more confusing than helpful.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
The Future of Allocations
Over the last few days I received emails from two highly sought-after wineries whose wines are without a doubt expensive and in demand. The wine allocation list is the holy grail for wineries. Allocations go something like this: Our limited production wines are sold by mailing list
and are available in select restaurants around the world. Our mailing list is presently full, but we can add you to our waiting list. We move clients onto the mailing list based on when you
contacted the winery, as space becomes
available.
Demand exceeds supply. More people want to buy the wine than can and the winery limits the amount of wine a customer can purchase. Sometimes, if a client decides to not buy a given vintage, they are removed from the mailing list. Marketing, branding and distribution can take a backseat to the production side of the process and almost an infinite amount of detail can be given to the viticulture and winemaking. Critics give the wine glowing reviews and high scores. Demand increases and the process repeats itself. Waiting lists for the top wineries are often years long, but they've got nothing on the Green Bay Packers' season ticket wait list (see the second-to-last FAQ).
But what does the future hold for allocation lists? Are they really as robust as they seem? Are they the best way to build a customer base?
Demand exceeds supply. More people want to buy the wine than can and the winery limits the amount of wine a customer can purchase. Sometimes, if a client decides to not buy a given vintage, they are removed from the mailing list. Marketing, branding and distribution can take a backseat to the production side of the process and almost an infinite amount of detail can be given to the viticulture and winemaking. Critics give the wine glowing reviews and high scores. Demand increases and the process repeats itself. Waiting lists for the top wineries are often years long, but they've got nothing on the Green Bay Packers' season ticket wait list (see the second-to-last FAQ).
But what does the future hold for allocation lists? Are they really as robust as they seem? Are they the best way to build a customer base?
Friday, May 31, 2013
Deep, honest thoughts are always soulful (the importance of words)
Earlier this week, I was part of a twitter discussion about the use of figurative language in wine writing sparked by Alder Yarrow's description of wines as being "honest, soulful." What is an honest wine, you ask? Well, of course it is a wine that doesn't try to be something it isn't. Is describing wine in that way really useful? The honesty of a wine is purely subjective, but then again any description of a wine is subjective. Even the most objective part of a review, the numerical score, is subjective bullshit. Do you know what 93 points tastes like? I don't.
Now, I'm not saying that tasting notes are bullshit, but some of the words you may find in them are. Take honest, for example. David White took Alder's description as meaning "a bit flawed." Others might take "honest, soulful" to mean a pure expression of terroir. Me, it means nothing, but it makes me think about it. Is a mass-produced wine honest? Sure. Lots of mass-produced wines don't pretend to me artisanal. Is a 16.5% 2007 Châteauneuf-du-Pape dishonest because it is pretending to be wine when it is actually a liqueur? Or does it honestly taste like 100 points?
I get the reason why writers try to write colorfully about wine. There are only so many things that wine tastes like. You can only read about mocha, currants and tobacco in cabernet sauvignon so many times before you tune out. And consumers don't really want to read about methoxypyrazine, monoterpenes or ketones. pH and titratable acidity only matter to a small group of nerds like me (and probably you). Numbers just taste bland. Do abstract terms have real meaning. No. But, bullshit terms like honest and soulful actually make people discuss wine. And that is a good thing.
Now, I'm not saying that tasting notes are bullshit, but some of the words you may find in them are. Take honest, for example. David White took Alder's description as meaning "a bit flawed." Others might take "honest, soulful" to mean a pure expression of terroir. Me, it means nothing, but it makes me think about it. Is a mass-produced wine honest? Sure. Lots of mass-produced wines don't pretend to me artisanal. Is a 16.5% 2007 Châteauneuf-du-Pape dishonest because it is pretending to be wine when it is actually a liqueur? Or does it honestly taste like 100 points?
I get the reason why writers try to write colorfully about wine. There are only so many things that wine tastes like. You can only read about mocha, currants and tobacco in cabernet sauvignon so many times before you tune out. And consumers don't really want to read about methoxypyrazine, monoterpenes or ketones. pH and titratable acidity only matter to a small group of nerds like me (and probably you). Numbers just taste bland. Do abstract terms have real meaning. No. But, bullshit terms like honest and soulful actually make people discuss wine. And that is a good thing.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Wine Spectator moving away from numerical scores?
The May 31, 2013 issue of Wine Spectator is curious for several reasons (aside from being published a month in advance). First, the meat and potatoes of this issue revolves around sushi and sake. It is not unusual for Wine Spectator to feature stories on food or specific types of wine, but the focus on Nihonshu (sake is actually the general Japanese term for alcoholic beverage and 日本酒 is the fermented rice beverage referred to as sake in English) is interesting and applauded. Having lived in Japan for one year almost eight years ago, I am probably more interested in Japanese food and beverages than the average wine drinker. Harvey Steiman wrote an interesting piece on sushi master Jiro Ono, who was the subject of the recent documentary, Jiro Dreams of Sushi. Kim Marcus and Mitch Frank each added stories on Nihonshu. It was in Marcus' story that the second curious issue arose.
In "Cracking the Sake Code," Marcus does a great job of describing how sake is made and defining the various terms used to describe it. However, one thing missing was the terroir of sake. Just as with wine, the regional differences of sake are both clearly defined and endlessly argued in Japan. Sake from Kyoto, Niigata and Yamagata are all very different; not because of the soils or climate, but because of the water, yeast and rice varieties used. Geography matters, but that isn't made apparent in the article. In fact, Marcus actually suggests that rice and water aren't usually locally sourced and the source doesn't matter. It would have been nice to see the geography of sake addressed with something approaching the effort they do for wine. Yet, that wasn't the impetus for this post.
The most striking thing missing from Marcus' story was Wine Spectator 100-point scale. Instead of numerical scores, Marcus, along with Bruce Sanderson, blind tasted the sake and used descriptive categories (words, not points) to reflect how highly they regarded each sake relative to other sake in different categories. Does 92 points describe something that "outstanding" does not? Do you gain more information knowing a wine rates 88 points as opposed to "very good?" As the precise score of a wine varies palate to palate, I think categories are in fact more useful. I think the method was more effective at describing the sake than if they had used points, but I clearly am not an advocate of the 100-pt system. Is this a hint that Wine Spectator is moving away from numerical scores? If sake doesn't need scores, then why does wine?
In "Cracking the Sake Code," Marcus does a great job of describing how sake is made and defining the various terms used to describe it. However, one thing missing was the terroir of sake. Just as with wine, the regional differences of sake are both clearly defined and endlessly argued in Japan. Sake from Kyoto, Niigata and Yamagata are all very different; not because of the soils or climate, but because of the water, yeast and rice varieties used. Geography matters, but that isn't made apparent in the article. In fact, Marcus actually suggests that rice and water aren't usually locally sourced and the source doesn't matter. It would have been nice to see the geography of sake addressed with something approaching the effort they do for wine. Yet, that wasn't the impetus for this post.
 |
| What's missing? |
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Wine Should Be Dynamic
Yesterday, I mentioned that consumers want dynamic wines. On face value, that is wrong. Many consumers want the cheapest wine they can get. They want to drink the same boring wine night in and night out. After all, jug wine and cheap boxed wine (there is some good boxed wine...) make up the majority of Americans' wine purchases. When I refer to dynamic wine, I'm talking about wines that cost more than seven dollars a bottle. I am talking about people that talk about wine.
Dynamic wine doesn't have to mean the absolute best damn wine in the world. It just means a wine that evokes emotions. It means wines that change the way we think about wine. One of my favorite wines is a six-dollar Vino de la Tierra de Castilla, Casa Solar. When I was in college, my wife-to-be and I drank a case of it when we were wet behind the ears. It was the red wine we served at our wedding. Will it knock your socks off? No. But it means something to me. It evokes thought and emotion. It makes me think about life. It makes me think about my continued journey through the wine world. Pretty impressive for a low-80 point wine. Will it be dynamic for you? Probably not. Sadly, I haven't had a bottle for a few years, but just thinking about it makes me smile.
Dynamic also means wines speak differently to different people. I've had many wines that someone has rated a "perfect" 100-points. Some I've like, some I've really disliked. One man's treasure is an other's trash. I can say I've never had a perfect wine. I don't think such a thing exists. It almost makes me sad to think that people think wine can be perfect. Wine can be pretty damn near perfect, but just like infinity it can never be reached.
Dynamic also means a wine that changes. It can change in the glass. It can change in the bottle. It can change your perception of wine. It can change your mind. Good wines from places off the beaten path excite me. Wines and people that try to change the wine world are dynamic. One of the problems with the wine world is that so many people try to make wine static. By assigning scores to wine, they etch in stone a quantitative, and subjective value of a wine. Sure, they say there are footnotes in their publications that say a score is only what one person thought about a wine on a given day, but we all know that is not how a score is used in the real world. Scores are written on the foreheads of wines with permanent ink.
I am put off by scores because they pretend to be permanent. Rarely do you see a critic change his or her score by more than a point or two. Critics pretend to be infallible. If they admit they were wrong, why would consumers listen to what they have to say? The people who hand out triple-digit scores want to solidify their influence. They want their voices to be permanent. Nothing about wine is permanent. Not the color, not the aroma and not the flavors. Not the wineries and not even the pundits. But I hope that the discussion and the global conversation that is fervently heating up will be permanent. When you and I are long gone, I hope people are still talking about wine with as much passion as I like to think I am.
Dynamic wine doesn't have to mean the absolute best damn wine in the world. It just means a wine that evokes emotions. It means wines that change the way we think about wine. One of my favorite wines is a six-dollar Vino de la Tierra de Castilla, Casa Solar. When I was in college, my wife-to-be and I drank a case of it when we were wet behind the ears. It was the red wine we served at our wedding. Will it knock your socks off? No. But it means something to me. It evokes thought and emotion. It makes me think about life. It makes me think about my continued journey through the wine world. Pretty impressive for a low-80 point wine. Will it be dynamic for you? Probably not. Sadly, I haven't had a bottle for a few years, but just thinking about it makes me smile.
Dynamic also means wines speak differently to different people. I've had many wines that someone has rated a "perfect" 100-points. Some I've like, some I've really disliked. One man's treasure is an other's trash. I can say I've never had a perfect wine. I don't think such a thing exists. It almost makes me sad to think that people think wine can be perfect. Wine can be pretty damn near perfect, but just like infinity it can never be reached.
Dynamic also means a wine that changes. It can change in the glass. It can change in the bottle. It can change your perception of wine. It can change your mind. Good wines from places off the beaten path excite me. Wines and people that try to change the wine world are dynamic. One of the problems with the wine world is that so many people try to make wine static. By assigning scores to wine, they etch in stone a quantitative, and subjective value of a wine. Sure, they say there are footnotes in their publications that say a score is only what one person thought about a wine on a given day, but we all know that is not how a score is used in the real world. Scores are written on the foreheads of wines with permanent ink.
I am put off by scores because they pretend to be permanent. Rarely do you see a critic change his or her score by more than a point or two. Critics pretend to be infallible. If they admit they were wrong, why would consumers listen to what they have to say? The people who hand out triple-digit scores want to solidify their influence. They want their voices to be permanent. Nothing about wine is permanent. Not the color, not the aroma and not the flavors. Not the wineries and not even the pundits. But I hope that the discussion and the global conversation that is fervently heating up will be permanent. When you and I are long gone, I hope people are still talking about wine with as much passion as I like to think I am.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Everything you need to know about cheap wine from someone who has made it his life’s work
I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about my friend Jeff Siegel, aka The Wine Curmudgeon. Jeff has decided to write a book about cheap wine. Not bad wine, not inferior wine, but good wine that won't break the bank. Jeff, who also is the co-founder of Drink Local Wine, has devoted the majority of his blog to the topic of cheap wine. He believes (correctly) that wine made from places other than California and wine that costs less than $10 per bottle can be very enjoyable and shouldn't be scoffed at.
Unfortunately, many consumers are intimidated by the overwhelming number of choices at the local liquor store (or those of you not in Colorado, your grocery store). Wine is a product that is meant to be enjoyed by more than just the Chablis and Brie crowd. But there are lots of choices when it comes to wine. Once you get past the funny tasting notes and meaningless scores, wine offers many different pleasures. You can share it with friends and families. You use it to complement meals. You can celebrate or console yourself. Jeff is writing this book to help regular people (the 99% if you will) feel confident about buying and drinking wine. Jeff loves wine and wants to share his passion with others.
But to do so, Jeff needs your help. He has decided to use Kickstarter (a crowd-funding website) to raise funds for the design and publication of the book. I already made a pledge and now it is your turn. I think what Jeff does (and says) is important, and so should you. You've probably seen the recent stories about how 3 large wine corporations control 51% of all American wine production. Most of those companies brands are amongst the cheap wine category. But they're not the only wineries making cheap wine. Jeff's book should provide a much-needed insight into how you can make sure that you'll enjoy and feel good about the cheap wine you buy. Plus, it is always fun to make a self-proclaimed curmudgeon smile just a bit!
Unfortunately, many consumers are intimidated by the overwhelming number of choices at the local liquor store (or those of you not in Colorado, your grocery store). Wine is a product that is meant to be enjoyed by more than just the Chablis and Brie crowd. But there are lots of choices when it comes to wine. Once you get past the funny tasting notes and meaningless scores, wine offers many different pleasures. You can share it with friends and families. You use it to complement meals. You can celebrate or console yourself. Jeff is writing this book to help regular people (the 99% if you will) feel confident about buying and drinking wine. Jeff loves wine and wants to share his passion with others.
But to do so, Jeff needs your help. He has decided to use Kickstarter (a crowd-funding website) to raise funds for the design and publication of the book. I already made a pledge and now it is your turn. I think what Jeff does (and says) is important, and so should you. You've probably seen the recent stories about how 3 large wine corporations control 51% of all American wine production. Most of those companies brands are amongst the cheap wine category. But they're not the only wineries making cheap wine. Jeff's book should provide a much-needed insight into how you can make sure that you'll enjoy and feel good about the cheap wine you buy. Plus, it is always fun to make a self-proclaimed curmudgeon smile just a bit!
Friday, January 11, 2013
A different 100-pt system compromise...
 |
| Image from http://www.arvi.ch/ |
With the release of the Wine Advocate issue #204 a few weeks ago, the problem of score inflation has come to a head. Mike Steinberger wrote a great piece about it on his WineDiarist blog and Antonio Galloni even chimed in on a heated discussion over on the WineBerserkers forum. To summarize the latest “scandal,” Galloni handed out 95-100 point scores to almost a quarter of the 2010 Napa Valley wines he reviewed. Robert Parker added 17 100-point scores from the Rhône Valley from the 2009-2011 vintages. Just in the past year, Parker has given 100-pt scores to more than 50 wines from Bordeaux, Napa and the Rhône! Perfection (and near perfection) aren’t that hard to come by anymore. Apparently it isn’t obvious to Galloni and Parker that giving too many high scores is going to make high scores meaningless. Like the boy who cried wolf, this duo is quickly turning into the critics who cried classic!
Friday, December 14, 2012
Five predictions for 2013
2012 has been an eventful year in the wine industry. There are more licensed American wineries than ever before (almost three times as many wineries as breweries...). California (and Colorado) had a bumper crop of high (not exceptional) quality. The Rudy Kurniawan story made headlines in the non-wine world after he was arrested for producing and selling millions of dollars of fraudulent wine. And in probably the biggest news that wasn't really wasn't that big (see yesterday's post), Robert Parker, Jr. announced that he was stepping down as editor-in-chief of the Wine Advocate, opening a second office in Singapore and sold a share of the ownership to three Asian investors (rumor is they aren't all Asian...). So what will 2013 bring in terms of worthy wine news?
Here are five prognostications:
Here are five prognostications:
Friday, January 20, 2012
The fallacy of the 100-point system revealed
Yesterday, Steve Heimoff assessed the current state of the 2010 California pinot noirs on his blog. Steve said of the 110 or so pinot noirs that he had tasted the scores ranged from 94 "all the way down to a miserable 80." I don't know about you, but to me (and to Steve's employer) a score in the low 80s (80-82) indicates that a wine is an acceptable wine, especially "in casual, less-critical circumstances." I don't consider an 80 a great score, but I wouldn't consider it miserable. Steve's statement reflects what I would consider the core of the score inflation problem. Grade inflation does not mean all scores are going up (as Blake Gray et al. suggest), just that the meaning of scores has changed. In the not so distant past, a grade of a "C" in college was considered an “average” grade. Now, many students believe it means outright failure. I teach at a local university and see this with my students. Every student thinks that they are an "A" student, but in reality few are. I suppose the same is true with wineries. They all think that they produce 90+ point wines, but few actually do. There is nothing wrong with making average wine, but apparently Steve Heimoff thinks that there is. Unfortunately, this is only the beginning of the problem.
When I commented on the post, Steve replied: " I would not use the word “miserable” in a formal review. But let’s face it, an 80 is interpreted as miserable by just about everyone. So when I comment on my own scores, I can be more descriptive, especially if I don’t identify the wine in question, which I would never do out of respect." So, is Wine Enthusiast’s rating scale a joke because when they rate a wine as acceptable, the editors actually believe it is "miserable?" On the surface, an 80 may seem like an average score, but if the critic doesn't actually believe that an 80-point wine is acceptable, then what is the score really worth.
I understand that Steve probably meant that a score of 80 will not be welcomed by most wineries as being helpful, and he is probably correct. But, if Steve takes wineries' feelings into consideration when he reviews wine how are we supposed to believe what he writes? Steve will apparently write psuedo-nice things about a wine out of respect, but when he doesn't have to identify the wine he can let everyone know that he really thinks it is miserable. This is not really breaking news and most people know that ratings are just a big game wine pundits play, but I’m kind of surprised to hear Steve Heimoff actually admit to the fallacy of the 100-point system. Bravo, Mr. Heimoff!
When I commented on the post, Steve replied: " I would not use the word “miserable” in a formal review. But let’s face it, an 80 is interpreted as miserable by just about everyone. So when I comment on my own scores, I can be more descriptive, especially if I don’t identify the wine in question, which I would never do out of respect." So, is Wine Enthusiast’s rating scale a joke because when they rate a wine as acceptable, the editors actually believe it is "miserable?" On the surface, an 80 may seem like an average score, but if the critic doesn't actually believe that an 80-point wine is acceptable, then what is the score really worth.
I understand that Steve probably meant that a score of 80 will not be welcomed by most wineries as being helpful, and he is probably correct. But, if Steve takes wineries' feelings into consideration when he reviews wine how are we supposed to believe what he writes? Steve will apparently write psuedo-nice things about a wine out of respect, but when he doesn't have to identify the wine he can let everyone know that he really thinks it is miserable. This is not really breaking news and most people know that ratings are just a big game wine pundits play, but I’m kind of surprised to hear Steve Heimoff actually admit to the fallacy of the 100-point system. Bravo, Mr. Heimoff!
Friday, August 5, 2011
No Such Thing as Wine Perfection (and ESPN Gets in on the 100-pt Rating System)
With every other wine writer wanting to make a splash about the 100-point wine rating system over the last few days I was planning on staying out of the crowded pool. But after reading a blog by Mike Sando on ESPN.com about passer perfection and the Total Quarterback Rating (QBR), I couldn't help but reread the article and replace NFL names with wine names. I think that the idea that perfection is impossible in both fields is spot on (just forget for a second that ESPN is promoting their brand spanking new 100-point system as a way to show that perfection is unattainable). I've paraphrased the article below with my wine-centric substitutions.
Before you begin, I want to state that in no way do I mean to disrespect Schrader Cellars by referencing their wine. I have not had the pleasure of tasting it and I am sure it is a very good bottle of wine. In fact, I will be passing through the Napa Valley next week and if I were to get an invite from the Schraders to come and taste it, I would love to do so...
The Wine Advocate, Issue #186 proclaimed that the 2007 Schrader Cabernet Sauvignon CCS was a perfect wine for Robert Parker, Jr. in December 2009.
Your palate knows better.
While the CCS was brilliant that day, receiving 100 points along with copious hedonistic descriptors, its performance could have been statistically superior. The CCS only scored a 98 on the 100-pt scale from the one Cellartracker user to rate it.
About half of the over-the-top prose used Parker’s favorite terms that Tom Wark identified in his 100-point profile. Yet, Parker favorites like intense and mineral were nowhere to be found in the note.
Just as Total Quarterback Rating, showfully debuted by ESPN, keeps moving the carrot as quarterbacks chase perfection, using words and not numbers also keeps moving the carrot for consumers, winemakers and critics alike.
No matter how well a wine scores from a Wine Advocate, Wine Spectator or Wine Enthusiast critic, it could fare better (or worse) when an actual consumer drinks it.
Completing the 100-pt double (James Laube of Wine Spectator also bestowed perfection upon the 2007 CCS) shattered records. But the performance wouldn't rate as high as one featuring 100-pt scores from Steve Heimoff, James Suckling and W. Blake Gray, too. And so on.
That's why it's misleading to say a wine is "perfect" when its score maxes out at 100 points under the formula widely used since 1982 by the most exalted of wine pundits.
The CCS’s 100-pt score only translated into being #15 on the Wine Spectator top 100 wines of 2010. Other wines made huge gains displaying better value or intrigue to the editors, to a degree much greater than they would have done typically.
In theory, a perfect wine cannot be improved on. Yet, Robert Parker has added asterisks to some 2009 Bordeaux scores that were at or even below his 2005 decrees to signify the sample was perhaps the estate’s finest release ever.
Even with a “perfect” wine, the consumer still must have the palate, experience and desire to create the perfect wine experience. And once you drink perfection, why continue drinking? Isn’t everything else by definition inferior?
Prose takes into account many more variables. It explains each wine in relation to how it affects a taster’s emotions, putting more weight on a context than a meaningless number cherry-picked by retailers worldwide.
Nevertheless, this the discussion will continue ad infinitum.
Before you begin, I want to state that in no way do I mean to disrespect Schrader Cellars by referencing their wine. I have not had the pleasure of tasting it and I am sure it is a very good bottle of wine. In fact, I will be passing through the Napa Valley next week and if I were to get an invite from the Schraders to come and taste it, I would love to do so...
The Wine Advocate, Issue #186 proclaimed that the 2007 Schrader Cabernet Sauvignon CCS was a perfect wine for Robert Parker, Jr. in December 2009.
Your palate knows better.
While the CCS was brilliant that day, receiving 100 points along with copious hedonistic descriptors, its performance could have been statistically superior. The CCS only scored a 98 on the 100-pt scale from the one Cellartracker user to rate it.
About half of the over-the-top prose used Parker’s favorite terms that Tom Wark identified in his 100-point profile. Yet, Parker favorites like intense and mineral were nowhere to be found in the note.
Just as Total Quarterback Rating, showfully debuted by ESPN, keeps moving the carrot as quarterbacks chase perfection, using words and not numbers also keeps moving the carrot for consumers, winemakers and critics alike.
No matter how well a wine scores from a Wine Advocate, Wine Spectator or Wine Enthusiast critic, it could fare better (or worse) when an actual consumer drinks it.
Completing the 100-pt double (James Laube of Wine Spectator also bestowed perfection upon the 2007 CCS) shattered records. But the performance wouldn't rate as high as one featuring 100-pt scores from Steve Heimoff, James Suckling and W. Blake Gray, too. And so on.
That's why it's misleading to say a wine is "perfect" when its score maxes out at 100 points under the formula widely used since 1982 by the most exalted of wine pundits.
The CCS’s 100-pt score only translated into being #15 on the Wine Spectator top 100 wines of 2010. Other wines made huge gains displaying better value or intrigue to the editors, to a degree much greater than they would have done typically.
In theory, a perfect wine cannot be improved on. Yet, Robert Parker has added asterisks to some 2009 Bordeaux scores that were at or even below his 2005 decrees to signify the sample was perhaps the estate’s finest release ever.
Even with a “perfect” wine, the consumer still must have the palate, experience and desire to create the perfect wine experience. And once you drink perfection, why continue drinking? Isn’t everything else by definition inferior?
Prose takes into account many more variables. It explains each wine in relation to how it affects a taster’s emotions, putting more weight on a context than a meaningless number cherry-picked by retailers worldwide.
Nevertheless, this the discussion will continue ad infinitum.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Is Antonio Galloni's Bitch in pre-production?
With the Robert Parker's announcement this past weekend that Antonio Galloni will take his place reviewing California wines for The Wine Advocate, I thought that this video from two years ago has some renewed relevance. Enjoy.
Robert Parker's Bitch from Josh Hermsmeyer on Vimeo. Check him out at Pinotblogger.
Written, Directed and Produced by:
Tina Caputo
for Vineyard & Winery Management.
www.vwm-online.com
PO Box 2358
Windsor CA 95492
Robert Parker's Bitch from Josh Hermsmeyer on Vimeo. Check him out at Pinotblogger.
Written, Directed and Produced by:
Tina Caputo
for Vineyard & Winery Management.
www.vwm-online.com
PO Box 2358
Windsor CA 95492
Thursday, January 27, 2011
A new wine rating system...
With all the hubbub surrounding the different wine rating systems and discussion about the extent different factors play a part of them, I’ve decided to create a new system. This system incorporates every aspect of experiencing a wine. This system is a first draft and I urge everyone to please help me renovate and improve the 100-point system. Together, we can make a truly excellent system that will actually mean something! So without any other introduction, here it is:
Yes No
Price:
Did you have any reservations about how much the wine cost? -1 +1
Did your significant other need convincing for you to buy the bottle? -2 +2
Did your purchase cause you to not be able to buy any other necessity? -3 +3
Was the wine free? +4 n/a
Bottle:
Is the bottle made of glass? +1 +1
Does the bottle have a punt? +2 n/a
Is the empty bottle heavier than a full bottle of something cheaper? +3 +3
Is the bottle open? +4 n/a
Label:
Is the label easy to read? +1 -1
Is the label clean and free of any tears? +2 -1
Is the label eye-catching? +3 +2
Is the label counterfeit? -4 +4
Capsule:
Does the bottle have a capsule? +1 n/a
Are there signs of seepage? -2 +2
Is the capsule made of tin? +3 +1
Does the capsule match the label? +4 -4
Closure:
Does the wine have a cork? +1 +1
Is the cork/closure easy to remove? +2 -2
Does the cork/closure come out in one piece? +3 -1
Does the cork/closure match the label? +4 -4
Sight:
Does the liquid look like wine? +1 -3
Is a red wine reddish, a rose pinkish and a white wine yellowish? +2 -2
Is the wine clear of foreign objects? +3 -3
Does the appearance look off? -4 +4
Nose:
Are the aromas enticing? +1 -1
Does the wine smell clean? +2 -2
Do certain (positive) aroma characteristics come to mind? +3 -3
Do the aromas make you think about what you smell? +4 -2
Flavors:
Do you sense some mixture of alcohol, acidity, tannin and/or fruit? +1 -1
Do the flavors linger in your mouth for at least 15 seconds? +2 -2
Do the flavors make you want to take another sip? +3 -3
Is the wine balanced? +4 -4
Texture:
Is the wine liquid? +1 -3
If the wine is sparkling, does it have bubbles? +2 -2
If the wine is still, is it free of bubbles? +3 -3
Is the wine balanced? +4 -4
Overall impression:
Have you been drinking wine for more than 30 years? +1 -1
Have you ever had a better wine previously? -2 +2
Would you drink this wine again? +3 -3
Do you want to add 4 points just for the hell of it? +4 n/a
Does the wine have attributes that numbers just can't describe? * n/a
Add up your score and you’ve just scored a wine like a professional!
I’m __ points on that!
For those of you arithmetically inclined, you will notice that the highest that a wine can score in this system is 98* points for a still wine and 97* points for a sparkling. This is of course due to the fact that wines are living entities that can achieve perfection no more than you or I...
Yes No
Price:
Did you have any reservations about how much the wine cost? -1 +1
Did your significant other need convincing for you to buy the bottle? -2 +2
Did your purchase cause you to not be able to buy any other necessity? -3 +3
Was the wine free? +4 n/a
Bottle:
Is the bottle made of glass? +1 +1
Does the bottle have a punt? +2 n/a
Is the empty bottle heavier than a full bottle of something cheaper? +3 +3
Is the bottle open? +4 n/a
Label:
Is the label easy to read? +1 -1
Is the label clean and free of any tears? +2 -1
Is the label eye-catching? +3 +2
Is the label counterfeit? -4 +4
Capsule:
Does the bottle have a capsule? +1 n/a
Are there signs of seepage? -2 +2
Is the capsule made of tin? +3 +1
Does the capsule match the label? +4 -4
Closure:
Does the wine have a cork? +1 +1
Is the cork/closure easy to remove? +2 -2
Does the cork/closure come out in one piece? +3 -1
Does the cork/closure match the label? +4 -4
Sight:
Does the liquid look like wine? +1 -3
Is a red wine reddish, a rose pinkish and a white wine yellowish? +2 -2
Is the wine clear of foreign objects? +3 -3
Does the appearance look off? -4 +4
Nose:
Are the aromas enticing? +1 -1
Does the wine smell clean? +2 -2
Do certain (positive) aroma characteristics come to mind? +3 -3
Do the aromas make you think about what you smell? +4 -2
Flavors:
Do you sense some mixture of alcohol, acidity, tannin and/or fruit? +1 -1
Do the flavors linger in your mouth for at least 15 seconds? +2 -2
Do the flavors make you want to take another sip? +3 -3
Is the wine balanced? +4 -4
Texture:
Is the wine liquid? +1 -3
If the wine is sparkling, does it have bubbles? +2 -2
If the wine is still, is it free of bubbles? +3 -3
Is the wine balanced? +4 -4
Overall impression:
Have you been drinking wine for more than 30 years? +1 -1
Have you ever had a better wine previously? -2 +2
Would you drink this wine again? +3 -3
Do you want to add 4 points just for the hell of it? +4 n/a
Does the wine have attributes that numbers just can't describe? * n/a
Add up your score and you’ve just scored a wine like a professional!
I’m __ points on that!
For those of you arithmetically inclined, you will notice that the highest that a wine can score in this system is 98* points for a still wine and 97* points for a sparkling. This is of course due to the fact that wines are living entities that can achieve perfection no more than you or I...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
