The Tyranny of Tasting Notes

Scott Rowson of Show-Me Eats pointed me over to an article in the Riverfront Times by Dave Nelson, who discusses his disdain for the point-rating system employed by wine critics, most prominently by iconic wine critic Robert Parker. This discussion is an important one; Alder Yarrow of Vinography recently posted his thoughts on the subject in response to a talk given by Eric Asimov, head wine critic for the New York Times.



Some quick background is in order. Until the late 1970's, when Robert Parker decided to drop his law practice to start Wine Advocate and provide independent, objective wine criticism, there wasn't much if any independent wine criticism. It was a common thing for wine critics to be financially involved with wineries and other parts of the industry; not only that, but wine reviews from that era rarely aimed for any kind of objectivity and often provided little to no information about the wine's quality.

Whatever else you can say about the subject, the introduction of an independent wine critic was a fundamentally revolutionary force for the industry. But it didn't happen overnight. The 1982 Bordeaux vintage was panned by most if not all major wine critics; Parker alone went out on a limb, identifying 1982 as a banner year for Bordeaux. When the vintage was released, Parker's status sky-rocketed; since then, Parker has become the biggest single-person brand name in history. His rating systems are criticized precisely because they are so influential; a rating of 90 vs. a 89 can be responsible for millions of dollars in sales and ratings of 95 points and up can create such high demands that some cult wines auction for thousands of dollars a bottle (or at least they did prior to the global financial meltdown).

Dave Nelson isn't the only person criticizing Parker's stylistic preferences; the criticism is often made that Parker's preference for big, massive wines loaded with fruit have driven winemakers all over the world to 'Parkerize' their wines, ie, make their wines in the style that Parker likes as it's easier to get a good rating that way. But the picture isn't so simple; while it's true that Parker does influence the stylistic decisions of many winemakers, the net effect is that wine around the planet has gotten better. The wines of Bordeaux and the Rhone particularly are good examples of this: Parker's reviews and ideas have pushed winemakers to understand the science of winemaking, to use clean equipment and better their vineyard management processes and to find the true potential of the grapes that they grow.

As a consumer, I'm glad of that. Here is Parker's rubric for scoring wines:

In terms of awarding points, my scoring system gives every wine a base of 50 points. The wine's general color and appearance merit up to 5 points. Since most wines today are well made, thanks to modern technology and the increased use of professional oenologists, they tend to receive at least 4, often 5 points. The aroma and bouquet merit up to 15 points, depending on the intensity level and dimension of the aroma and bouquet as well as the cleanliness of the wine. The flavor and finish merit up to 20 points, and again, intensity of flavor, balance, cleanliness, and depth and length on the palate are all important considerations when giving out points. Finally, the overall quality level or potential for further evolution and improvement—aging—merits up to 10 points.

Scores are important for the reader to gauge a professional critic's overall qualitative placement of a wine vis-à-vis its peer group. However, it is also vital to consider the description of the wine's style, personality, and potential. No scoring system is perfect, but a system that provides for flexibility in scores, if applied by the same taster without prejudice, can quantify different levels of wine quality and provide the reader with one professional's judgment. However, there can never be any substitute for your own palate nor any better education than tasting the wine yourself.

That's not so bad as an effort at an objective evaluation of a wine. But as far as a consumer cares about what they're drinking, context is extremely important and point ratings alone don't tell the whole story.

Californian Chardonnay in the New York Times

I'm not an experienced wine drinker yet, but I have been drinking wine long enough to know that people's tastes evolve over time. My personal evolution began typically enough with bad Californian chardonnay that I purchased from the discount bin. It was undrinkable to me and even though I would later on be introduced to some of the cream of the Californian crop--wines like Pahlmeyer, Cakebread Reserve, Kistler, DuMol, Forman, et al--I very quickly discovered that my preference was for wines that weren't overoaked, flabby butterbombs.

Part of the reason why California became known for their oaked, buttery chardonnays is because chardonnay is a grape that's very receptive to winemaking expertise because it tends to be somewhat of a bland, neutrally-flavored grape unless rigorously grown. Mass produced chardonnay tends to produce poor juice that turns into poor wine, high in alcohol and harshly acidic and without much defined fruit. To cover those deficiencies, winemakers can introduce a secondary malo-lactic fermentation that processes the malic acid in the wine into lactic acid (the acid in milk and cream) or they can saturate the wine with the vanillin flavors of oak using a variety of techniques, including dumping wood shavings or chips into the wine. Often, grapes like Columbard that grow even faster and provide higher yields (and hence are cheaper) are blended into wines for filler.

At some point though, it's unfair to castigate that entire segment of the industry. Wine--like any other food--is an agricultural product. And the mega-wineries in California were the companies that got large enough to invest serious money into research, spurring many of the technological and intellectual advances in our understanding of how to make wine.

In any case, Eric Asimov, head wine critic for the New York Times, headed a tasting panel trying chardonnays from Santa Barbara Country that's in today's NYT. Santa Barbara is a region to keep an eye on; at tastings in the last year I've noted that the chardonnays and pinot noirs from the region are not only fairly diverse but generally of a high quality. An excerpt:

While Santa Barbara can trace its winemaking history to the days of the Spanish missions, it is relatively new to the modern age of winemaking. Much of the region’s growth, in fact, has come in the last 15 years, which makes its accomplishments fairly remarkable given the decades spent seeking out the best places to plant vineyards in Northern California, not to mention the centuries of trial and error in Europe.
Still, the wines offer a palpable sense of experimentation. Sometimes they work well, occasionally they do not, and sometimes, well, the jury is still out.
Regardless of the style of the wine, what separated the bottles we liked best from those we rejected can be summed up in one word: balance.
As is often the case in California, the biggest struggle for growers is to get the grapes to ripen slowly and evenly. The sugar, which is fermented into alcohol; the acidity, which offers liveliness, and the other grape components all must be in balance, otherwise the wines can be thin and acidic, or, more likely, overblown, hot and fatiguing.
All of our top wines achieved this precarious balance. Our No. 1, the 2006 Ashley’s from Fess Parker, was rich and full-bodied. Yet it was lively as well, giving shape and focus to the voluptuous flavors and keeping it refreshing.

Some of the other wines on the list, including the wines from Brewer-Clifton, are wines I've tried before; I'll concur here that the Brewer-Clifton wines I've tasted are beastly and massive and hugely concentrated and probably not for the faint of heart.

If you're interested in these wines, we do carry Brewer-Clifton as well as the 2006 Fess Parker 'Ashley's Vineyard' (3.5 cases).

2004 Barolos in the NYT

I have long been a fan of Barolo, Barbaresco, and the other Nebbiolo-based wines of the Piedmont region of Northern Italy. They typically are very aromatic, tannic red wines that can be incredible. If you haven't tried a nebbiolo-based wine yet, start at the low end with the declassified nebbiolo from Proddutori del Barbaresco or the producer Paitin.

Eric Asimov and a tasting panel in the New York Times reviews the 2004 vintage of Barolo and finds them to be excellent and far more approachable than other vintages. An excerpt is below:

To see for ourselves, the wine panel recently sampled 25 Barolos from the 2004 vintage. We decided to limit ourselves to bottles under $100, which means we omitted many of the pantheon producers, like Bartolo Mascarello, Bruno Giacosa, Giacomo Conterno, Paolo Scavino, Luciano Sandrone and quite a few others.

Still, even at Barolo’s lower tier, it was clear to us that 2004 is indeed a fine year. For the tasting, Florence Fabricant and I were joined by Chris Cannon, an owner of Alto in midtown Manhattan and Convivio in Tudor City, and Fred Dexheimer, the wine director of the BLT restaurant group.

What makes 2004 distinctive? To me, it is the fact that many of the wines are approachable right now — much earlier than is typical for tannic, high-acid Barolos — without sacrificing elegance or structure. In a classic, austere vintage like 1996 or 2001, Barolos can take years to come around. Many ’96s are still not ready to drink. Riper years like 1997 and 2000 are accessible earlier but sacrifice some of the precision and focus of the more austere years. In this sense, the ’04 vintage performs a rare balancing act.

The link to the story in the New York Times is here; a multimedia discussion of some of the most distinctive wines by the tasting panel is here.


We have recently obtained an offer for a number of these wines from the importer, A. Bommarito Wines. Quantities are limited, and more details can be found here.

More links here:
1. Ed McCarthy gives a report on the 2004 vintage specifically, and a quick report on other vintages here.
2. Gary Vaynerchuk thinks 2004 Barolo brings the thunder, here.
3. A good history of Barolo here.