Archive for the 'Wine Ratings' Category

In 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.”

Read the rest of this entry »

I read with great interest, the recent announcement that The New York Times will be starting a wine club on the heels of the Wall Street Journal and San Francisco Chronicle wine clubs, which have already been launched. This did not come as a surprise to me; the motivation was obvious: the piece went on to say that the paper was “seeking new revenue” and that their 2nd quarter results showed a decline in sales of 21.2%.  All three newspapers cover, rate and review wine and all three newspapers are now selling wine.

Read the rest of this entry »

One of the things the editors talked about at our just-completed editorial conference was rating wines. We even tasted a few pairs of wines to help illuminate (lubricate) the discussion. In the first pairing, we blind-tasted two wines from the same producer–one the estate wine, one the second wine. Essentially, this was a test of whether we could pick out the “better” wine.

Perhaps a more precise way of phrasing the question would be whether our critics agreed with the winery’s judgement of which was the better wine. In the end, we almost unanimously did. Why? Because even though wine rating is undeniably subjective, most critics–and winemakers–are examining the same traits of each wine.

Although each of our reviewers is free to use their own rubric, we stress the importance of evaluating balance, length, intensity and complexity as the basis for our ratings. For myself, I tend to model my scoring approach after that of Robert Parker, Jr., whose writings played a major role in my early wine education.

Appearance is not a major factor, unless it is somehow suspect (hazy) or atypical (browning in a young white) for the type and age of wine being judged; most wines receive 4 or 5 points for appropriate appearance.

Aroma is the next facet of the wine that I judge, based on balance, intensity and complexity. Balance suggests a harmony of scents, with no single overbearing component. Intensity can be a double-edged sword: superintense but unpleasurable aromas rate lower than low-intensity unpleasurable ones. Complexity mostly refers to the number of different scents detected, subject to the requirement of balance, and on rare occasions refers to the indescribability of the overall bouquet. Aromas typically account for up to 10 points of a wine’s score.

Flavors are up next, and for obvious reasons are very closely associated with a wine’s aromas. Generally, I evaluate flavors along the same lines (balance, intensity, complexity) as aromas, and wines that score well for their aromas often perform well in flavor as well. That said, certain wines are more or less intensely flavored than aromatically endowed, and some wines’ flavors don’t gracefully reflect their aromas. Length of finish is an important quality indicator, although with the same caveat as intensity: No one wants a long finish if it tastes of paint remover. Overall, flavor accounts for up to 15 points of a wine’s rating.

While the wine is on the palate, I also examine the wine’s weight and texture, or what we call mouthfeel. Although this is primarily a function of the wine’s alcohol, sugar, tannin and acid levels, it may also reflect the wine’s concentration and other components. It should be appropriately balanced with the rest of the wine’s elements; I award up to 10 points for mouthfeel.

That leaves up to 10 points I assign based on a wine’s perceived overall quality and ability to improve over time. And this–in addition to the other areas where they may not receive full marks–is where most of the world’s rosés come up short on my scorecard, as virtually none are capable of improving with age (maybe Lopez de Heredia’s Rioja Rosado, if you like the style). For similar reasons, I will probably not find many Beaujolais nearing that mystical 100-point barrier, nor several other styles of wine.

That doesn’t mean that these wines aren’t capable of excellence; many are, and make for wonderful drinking. It just means that they are subject to certain limitations imposed on them by my scoring rubric. Should they be?

During my school days when I brought home high test scores from elementary, middle and even high school I received a big kiss on my cheek and warm accolades from both mom and dad.  More often than not I’m proud to say my scores were in the 90s and once in a while I even nailed a 100-point perfect score and a delicious bowl of ice cream was my reward.

This similar experience had been embedded into the psyches of tens of millions of Baby Boomers like me and certainly subsequent generations of Americans had a similar encounter with this “100-point” rating system.

It’s quite apparent to me that if millions of consumers can relate to this type of numerical rating from childhood then it must be a valuable way to communicate. The way wine ratings on the 100 point scale impact the sale of wine is a testimony to the truth.  To me, communication and what works for the majority of people is what’s primarily important.

Read the rest of this entry »