Wine Enthusiast Magazine
SubscribeIn the recent comments on our 100-point scale for rating wines, we’ve received a number of questions concerning the use of “typicity” to award points. I guess the theory goes something like, “If a wine is typical of its variety/region, it should receive extra points.” To which I call, “Bullsh*t.”
Let me explain. Wines that are typical of a variety/region exhibit “the traits or characteristics peculiar to its kind, class or group.” The quote is from Webster’s II New College Dictionary, the one that happens to be in my office, and note that the definition specifically doesn’t have anything to do with quality, which is what our 100-point scale purports to measure.
Perhaps a few examples will serve to point up the flaws behind the idea of conflating typicity with quality:
- Back in the 1970s, several major companies rushed to plant Cabernet Sauvignon in Monterey County. The resulting wines were generally vegetal. Wine critics panned the wines—should they have praised them for being typical, since that is what the majority of them tasted like? Imagine buying a wine based on this 93-point review: “Shows the exaggerated asparagus and green bean notes of Monterey Cabernet…great stuff that epitomizes the combination of grape variety and terroir.”
- The vast majority of Maconnais Chardonnays are light and crisp, combining apple and citrus notes but lacking richness and depth. Does that mean the ripe, sometimes oak-aged wines of producers such as Jean Thévenet, Olivier Merlin or Domaine Guillemot-Michel should be penalized for being “atypical”? Thévenet, in particular, has had difficulties with the local authorities, who argue against his wines being labeled as Macon because they lack typicity.
- Wines that are particularly innovative—new or recently revived grape varieties, new ways of making existing ones—leave reviewers no basis for making a typicity comparison. Should we assume they are typical and reward them, or penalize them for not being typical?
At Wine Enthusiast, we base our quality assessments largely on evaluating wines’ balance, length, intensity and complexity, not how closely they hew to some hypothetical standard of typicity. Readers should refer to the texts of the reviews if they want to read about the wines’ traits or characteristics. When it comes to points, we want to reward excellence, not typicitymediocrity.
Filed under: Connoisseurship, Critics/Competitions, Opinions and Commentary, Wine Ratings, Wine Tasting
1 Comment
September 16th, 2009 at 8:53:51 AM
Should we rule out typicity as a way to evaluate wine? In some cases, typicity can contribute the assessment of wines–in other cases, the concept doesn’t apply. I think the issue here is whether we should use typicity to establish a golden standard of evaluation, which it should not. Like all wine reviews, our critiques require a certain freedom to pick and choose the ideas that support our claims. If typicity does play a part in assessing a wine favorably, we should use it. And when it doesn’t, let’s not penalize the product. But let’s remain open to the idea of distinguishing when typicity’s relevant to the review or not. As for the dictionary, words like wine are fluid–check back in a decade or two and see if that definition holds up or not.