Now that the pain from the breakup has subsided, I recognize that there are Torrontés’ worth recommending; of course there are.

Okay, I’ve taken the analogy past the breaking point, but it holds: when you first meet someone and romantic sparks are struck, flaws are forgiven, even welcomed in that giddy rush. (Not very bright but I find that simplicity so charming! Can be kind of nasty but there’s such strength in that.) Looking back, you saw the flaws, but they were overlooked, even embraced.

My latest infatuation is Pinot Gris from the Pacific Northwest. What sparked the love are offerings by King Estate, which I’ve encountered on several wine lists and have enjoyed so thoroughly that I refuse to believe this love will not last forever. These are generally crisp, lean, refreshing. The best (richest, most complex) examples of Pinot Gris come from Alsace, but for the sake of this early-summer, easy-drinking, easy-on-the-budget, extended-metaphor essay, we’ll concentrate on Washington and Oregon.

Here are some top-rated, current-release Torrontés and Pinot Gris for summer enjoyment and discovery; the ratings are by Michael Schachner and Paul Gregutt. These are all cheap dates. I can only hope White Burgundy doesn’t find out my cheating ways.

91 ArborBrook Vineyards 2008 Croft Vineyard Pinot Gris; $18
91 Adelsheim 2008 Pinot Gris; $19
90 Alexandria Nicole 2009 Pinot Gris; $16
90 Hyatt Vineyards 2008 Pinot Gris; $9
89 Chatter Creek 2008 Pinot Gris; $14

88 Terrazas de los Andes 2008 Unoaked Reserva Torrontés; $17
88 Incayal 2009 Torrontés; $13
88 Tamari 2009 Reserve Torrontés; $15
87 Zolo 2009 Torrontés; $11
87 Finca Agostino 2009 ILKA Torrontés; $10

As illustrated in the following figure, Wine Enthusiast’s wine ratings are normally distributed on a roughly bell-shaped curve.

Notice the strange “tail” on the left side of the graph, where it reads NR (Not Rated). That uptick indicates wines that were deemed unacceptable by our reviewers. Those wines are not scored, so that bar actually represents all of the wines that would have rated from 50-79. It’s not so much a breakdown in the distribution as an artifact of our policy not to waste time on detailed reviews of bad wines.

The other notable feature of the graph is the apparent inversion of the 89- and 90-point bars. In a textbook distribution, we’d expect to see more 89-point ratings than 90-point scores. In this case, I suspect the explanation is simply that our reviewers are human and inclined to give borderline cases the benefit of the doubt. Paul Gregutt, who reviews wines from the Pacific Northwest for us, held forth at length on the topic not long ago.

That 89-90 point divide is perceived among consumers and the trade as a huge break point, and it’s clear that our reviewers are affected by it as well. That statistical abnormality is something that we’ve consistently observed over time here at Wine Enthusiast and I have brought it to our reviewers’ attention on several occasions, yet it persists. I can’t help but feel curmudgeonly just for pointing it out, and it makes me wonder if it’s even worth worrying about.

What do you think? Do we need to toughen up?

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.

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.

As you probably know, Wine Enthusiast Companies not only has a publishing business, Wine Enthusiast Magazine, that rates and reviews wines but a separate commerce business, Wine Enthusiast Catalog, that sells wine cellars and accessories. Wine Enthusiast Catalog has a sister company, WineExpress.com which does, in fact, sell wine.  The editors of the magazine have nothing to do with our division that sells wine. It is the same integrity expected of the journalists at The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and San Francisco Chronicle.

The ownership of media and commerce companies by a single entity is not a new development.  Time Warner was always in the product-selling business while they have owned magazines, TV and radio stations.  Disney, for example, produces movies in both its Touchstone and Pixar divisions, some of which may be reviewed by critics that work for ABC News (a network owned by Disney). I am quite confident that these film critics would not think twice about giving a lousy review to a movie that might have been produced by Touchstone.

As advertising revenue declines due to difficult economic conditions which impact marketer’s product budgets, so does the economic viability of media models such as newspapers, magazines, radio and television. This has nothing to do with the internet, (more about this in my next blog).  This loss of sales behooves pure media plays to find new sources of revenue.  This is precisely what is driving The New York Times to commerce and this is what will create more combined media/commerce companies in the future.

Without commerce, companies whose survival is based on paid subscriptions from readers (which is now more often than not available free on-line) and advertising revenue (which is in a steep decline) have an uncertain future.

I believe in the commerce/media model as long as potential conflicts of interest are carefully audited and exposed. The most valuable asset any media company has is its audience and they need to monetize this asset by marketing goods along with their advertisers.  The alternative is more bankrupt companies and vast unemployment in this country.

As I write this, Reader’s Digest has filed for Chapter 11; this makes my point strike home even more profoundly.

What do you think about being offered wine or other product offers from The New York Times, Wall Street Journal or Wine Enthusiast Catalog?

What alternatives do major media companies have if their two main sources of revenue (subscriptions and advertising sales) are disintegrating?

Adam Strum is the Founder and Chairman of Wine Enthusiast Companies and Editor and Publisher of Wine Enthusiast Magazine.

Follow Adam Strum on Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | Google

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?

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.

While I agree this is not a perfect way to communicate quality to consumers it may be the best way considering the limited time people have today.  This is why we also accompany all of our ratings with prose to further communicate the flavors our readers may find in these wines.  The goal of the 100-point rating scale is simply to give consumers some direction based on our taster’s professional opinion. I’m certain that even our tasters would agree that this is a subjective art. The consumer should follow their own taste and preferences as well.

For years the 100-point scale has directed millions of consumers to make intelligent buying decisions and this is not something that is going to change in the foreseeable future. When retail wine shops have ratings displayed on every shelf and wineries and retailers tout scores every advertisement.

Given the thousands of wine released every year do you think the 100-point system provides positive direction for the vast majority of wine consumers?

Adam Strum is the Founder and Chairman of Wine Enthusiast Companies and Editor and Publisher of Wine Enthusiast Magazine.

Follow Adam Strum on Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | Google