excellent post. I would simply add that the Parkerization of the wine world had resulted in better wines overall. would that have happened anyway over time? well, nothing like an economic incentive to goose investment in equipment, vineyard, and expertise!
A good point Agamemnon, I remember coming across the stack of old issues of the Wine Advocate at the first winery I worked at in the late 90’s. Amazing how many wines in those early issues scored very badly. I think there was an overall increase in quality particularly in lower priced Californian wines. For me the country that was most negatively impacted by Parkerization was Australia.
Solid review of one of the oldest problems in the American wine culture. As I have been involved in the wine trade for over a half century, like you, as a wine judge, writer, retailer etc ad nauseum, I have never subscribed to 100 pt system, for all of the reasons you note; and one more, effectively. It actually obscures the bigger picture that wines compared microscopically by grading out of 100 like 91 vs 93 pts fails to note that both are excellent but different. And that is more important to enjoyment of the wine. One note of correction (IMO): You wrote: It is an argument against confusing extract with depth, immediate impact with longevity..." The issue is not Extract, but Extraction. "Dry Extract" is a measurable thing and has real consequences for identifying a finer wine than one less so, whether it is a 9% alcohol German Riesling or a 14% Barolo. Trying to extract too much from the grapes via higher sugar levels and alcohol, over-long macerations etc etc is generally the bigger problem as it invariably disrupts the balance and harmony the fruit originally provided. But paying attention to those aspects of farming and winemaking that lead to mature fruit and phenolics commensurate with the climate of a place and the appropriate variety generally leads to good Dry Extract and fine quality plus balance. That is something that too many Napa Cab producers have lost site of in their 'quest for points'. So much more one can say, but you definitely make the case for taking points out of the equation. Personally, for years and now with WIneKnowLog Reports and other writing, I continue to use a simple three star system: Good/very good; Very good/excellent; Outstanding. Simple understandable and judgmental only insofar as the notes for each wine's description. But I will say, as one of your commenters did, that the Australian show system and the old 20pt system which sets minimum benchmark scores such as 16 pt for a Bronze medal (good quality, some personality, no faults etc) provided the basis for my 3 star system. Which seems eminently sensible in the wider scheme of things! Joel
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I agree that I should have written extraction, not extract. In fact, I thought I had. The article has been corrected. We are in agreement about scoring systems. I keep hoping that we could evolve to a system that also encompassed occasion of use–beyond a simple food pairing suggestion–that would provide helpful cues to encourage opening bottles for a wide range of shared moments.
I give your overall essay a 97.5 Ted. The remaining 2.5 you wrote about previously, i.e. price is an existential factor with most of us; and in this "demand correction" moment, it seems Gen Zers couldn't give a fig about pairings. Which, of course, is a shame and a shonda.
The relevant context for evaluation is the occasion of use. Food pairing is only one occasion of use. Aperitif, cocktail, dessert, and after dinner are all relevant occasions of use.
I started my study and tasting of wine with the number system. I guess the wine world had to start with something. Frankly, most of the wine spectator tasting lists were bottles I could never find. The few times I had rated wines, the experience ranged from I see what they mean to what are they talking about to I don't like this.
I could be offered a 100 point oaked chardonnay and the rating wouldn't matter. The oak does something bad to that particular grape. No matter the quality I won't drink or buy it.
Decades ago at a Bordeaux wines lunch, we had a selection of reds. One in particular was just awful. It paired with nothing, a moldy nasty liquid that smelled like men's dorm lounge stinky socks. I don't recall the name, nor the rating.
But something changed when having it with a rich chocolate dessert. It was transformed. Gone were all of the awful aspects, instead delivering an amplified, intense beam of amazing chocolate flavor that was missing when I had the dessert by itself or with the other Bordeaux glasses. How do you attach a number rating to that?
This line says it all: "the score begins to look less like a measurement than a moment." A great wine is a great moment. In fact, "occasion of use" is the more clinical way of saying the same thing. Whether critics know it or not, their scores measure that moment, wine in the context of a tasting. And yes, it's both a little sad and a little funny that a whole industry orients itself around such arbiters of taste. But then again, art, music and film are subject to the same forces. There are probably better ways, or at least more kinds of ways, to measure wine moments for people who genuinely want to understand them. Really enjoyed reading this, Ted.
Hey Brett!! I don't know that it's the same to compare to other industries and ratings as the moment a wine is judged is based on a sip or two, while the movie or song is measured on the whole of the parts. I'd add that many of us know that certain awards for other industries/categories don't line up with our taste.
Perhaps we'd be due for a panel of the best wine reviewers to join forces and do an awards show.
Some years ago, while walking through a client's estate vineyard, his new, 100 point wine maker told me he was only interested in skins and seeds. "Well, then you don't need me," I said. Never went back.
The relevant context for evaluation is the occasion of use. Food pairing is only. one occasion of use. Aperitif, cocktail, dessert, and after dinner are all relevant occasions of use.
Depends on what you are having for a meal and the reason you are gathering. Anderson Valley Pinot Noir with grilled salmon or roast chicken. Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon with ribeye steak, leg of lamb. Napa Valley Merlot with pasta with tomato sauce. Etc. All of the LMR red wines are moderate in alcohol (less than 14%) with acidity meant for food.
Very interesting and provocative. I’m having BBQ ribs and chicken tonight. I think I’ll have a high quality micro brew from Half Moon Bay Brewing Company. Full Swing IPA. It pairs well with everything in baseball season ⚾️😎
I've always thought the system has such large flaws....
The subjectivity of it - all critics have an individualize palate - why should I trust Parker's 98 over Vinous' 94 for the same wine!
A wine is evaluated based on a few sips; anyone who has been to a large tasting remembers the "gladiators"
Some tasting reviews are blind, double blind, some are not
Some clearly have taken payoffs in the very least through advertising
Not to mention the amount of enjoyment that a 100 pt wine brings other than the thrill of the hunt. Maybe it brings a little bit more than a 95 pt wine of the same type and vintage.
excellent post. I would simply add that the Parkerization of the wine world had resulted in better wines overall. would that have happened anyway over time? well, nothing like an economic incentive to goose investment in equipment, vineyard, and expertise!
A good point Agamemnon, I remember coming across the stack of old issues of the Wine Advocate at the first winery I worked at in the late 90’s. Amazing how many wines in those early issues scored very badly. I think there was an overall increase in quality particularly in lower priced Californian wines. For me the country that was most negatively impacted by Parkerization was Australia.
No doubt quality has improved because of the score seeking
Ted
Solid review of one of the oldest problems in the American wine culture. As I have been involved in the wine trade for over a half century, like you, as a wine judge, writer, retailer etc ad nauseum, I have never subscribed to 100 pt system, for all of the reasons you note; and one more, effectively. It actually obscures the bigger picture that wines compared microscopically by grading out of 100 like 91 vs 93 pts fails to note that both are excellent but different. And that is more important to enjoyment of the wine. One note of correction (IMO): You wrote: It is an argument against confusing extract with depth, immediate impact with longevity..." The issue is not Extract, but Extraction. "Dry Extract" is a measurable thing and has real consequences for identifying a finer wine than one less so, whether it is a 9% alcohol German Riesling or a 14% Barolo. Trying to extract too much from the grapes via higher sugar levels and alcohol, over-long macerations etc etc is generally the bigger problem as it invariably disrupts the balance and harmony the fruit originally provided. But paying attention to those aspects of farming and winemaking that lead to mature fruit and phenolics commensurate with the climate of a place and the appropriate variety generally leads to good Dry Extract and fine quality plus balance. That is something that too many Napa Cab producers have lost site of in their 'quest for points'. So much more one can say, but you definitely make the case for taking points out of the equation. Personally, for years and now with WIneKnowLog Reports and other writing, I continue to use a simple three star system: Good/very good; Very good/excellent; Outstanding. Simple understandable and judgmental only insofar as the notes for each wine's description. But I will say, as one of your commenters did, that the Australian show system and the old 20pt system which sets minimum benchmark scores such as 16 pt for a Bronze medal (good quality, some personality, no faults etc) provided the basis for my 3 star system. Which seems eminently sensible in the wider scheme of things! Joel
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I agree that I should have written extraction, not extract. In fact, I thought I had. The article has been corrected. We are in agreement about scoring systems. I keep hoping that we could evolve to a system that also encompassed occasion of use–beyond a simple food pairing suggestion–that would provide helpful cues to encourage opening bottles for a wide range of shared moments.
I give your overall essay a 97.5 Ted. The remaining 2.5 you wrote about previously, i.e. price is an existential factor with most of us; and in this "demand correction" moment, it seems Gen Zers couldn't give a fig about pairings. Which, of course, is a shame and a shonda.
The relevant context for evaluation is the occasion of use. Food pairing is only one occasion of use. Aperitif, cocktail, dessert, and after dinner are all relevant occasions of use.
I started my study and tasting of wine with the number system. I guess the wine world had to start with something. Frankly, most of the wine spectator tasting lists were bottles I could never find. The few times I had rated wines, the experience ranged from I see what they mean to what are they talking about to I don't like this.
I could be offered a 100 point oaked chardonnay and the rating wouldn't matter. The oak does something bad to that particular grape. No matter the quality I won't drink or buy it.
Decades ago at a Bordeaux wines lunch, we had a selection of reds. One in particular was just awful. It paired with nothing, a moldy nasty liquid that smelled like men's dorm lounge stinky socks. I don't recall the name, nor the rating.
But something changed when having it with a rich chocolate dessert. It was transformed. Gone were all of the awful aspects, instead delivering an amplified, intense beam of amazing chocolate flavor that was missing when I had the dessert by itself or with the other Bordeaux glasses. How do you attach a number rating to that?
This line says it all: "the score begins to look less like a measurement than a moment." A great wine is a great moment. In fact, "occasion of use" is the more clinical way of saying the same thing. Whether critics know it or not, their scores measure that moment, wine in the context of a tasting. And yes, it's both a little sad and a little funny that a whole industry orients itself around such arbiters of taste. But then again, art, music and film are subject to the same forces. There are probably better ways, or at least more kinds of ways, to measure wine moments for people who genuinely want to understand them. Really enjoyed reading this, Ted.
Hey Brett!! I don't know that it's the same to compare to other industries and ratings as the moment a wine is judged is based on a sip or two, while the movie or song is measured on the whole of the parts. I'd add that many of us know that certain awards for other industries/categories don't line up with our taste.
Perhaps we'd be due for a panel of the best wine reviewers to join forces and do an awards show.
The critics award goes to.....
Hey there, Jacob. Good idea! A Wine Academy Awards show. The award might be a little gold statue of Bacchus. “And the Bacchus goes to … “
Would the judges evaluate a wine on a few sips, a glass, or would they have to drink the whole bottle?
That's what I was wondering myself. It would be a lot of drinking to have the whole bottle but a sip doesn't seem right.
Some years ago, while walking through a client's estate vineyard, his new, 100 point wine maker told me he was only interested in skins and seeds. "Well, then you don't need me," I said. Never went back.
I agree completely. But would point out one contextual thing: many Americans consume wine—even red— without food as a substitute cocktail.
The relevant context for evaluation is the occasion of use. Food pairing is only. one occasion of use. Aperitif, cocktail, dessert, and after dinner are all relevant occasions of use.
All hail Kermit Lynch. Ahead of his time about this aspect and much else.
If I were to have a red wine from Long Meadow Ranch to share with my friends, what would you recommend 🍷🍗
Depends on what you are having for a meal and the reason you are gathering. Anderson Valley Pinot Noir with grilled salmon or roast chicken. Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon with ribeye steak, leg of lamb. Napa Valley Merlot with pasta with tomato sauce. Etc. All of the LMR red wines are moderate in alcohol (less than 14%) with acidity meant for food.
BBQ ribs and roast chicken. Sounds like I’ll have all three available. Thank you. Now you just need a Ted.ai and you’re infinitely scaleable.
Very interesting and provocative. I’m having BBQ ribs and chicken tonight. I think I’ll have a high quality micro brew from Half Moon Bay Brewing Company. Full Swing IPA. It pairs well with everything in baseball season ⚾️😎
A Ridge Zinfandel would work well.
I'm giving your 3 part series a score of 101. I’m expecting an amazing finish!!!
I've always thought the system has such large flaws....
The subjectivity of it - all critics have an individualize palate - why should I trust Parker's 98 over Vinous' 94 for the same wine!
A wine is evaluated based on a few sips; anyone who has been to a large tasting remembers the "gladiators"
Some tasting reviews are blind, double blind, some are not
Some clearly have taken payoffs in the very least through advertising
Not to mention the amount of enjoyment that a 100 pt wine brings other than the thrill of the hunt. Maybe it brings a little bit more than a 95 pt wine of the same type and vintage.