There is ongoing discussion and disagreement over wine critics scores and the subsequent effect on wine sales.
Most of us who work in the wine industry have varying levels of frustration about the score wars.
This frustration stems from the fact that we have so many amazing wines to sell that either haven't been scored or have received low scores from critics. Some of us passionately believe that these wines are in some cases superior to the 95 point wines.
We believe this because, like the wine critics, we taste many wines throughout our work week.Wine retailers, distributors and importers are constantly tasting and evaluating wines.
As Steve Heimoff, a wine writer/critic from Wine Enthusiast magazine, pointed out in a recent post on his blog , the higher the score, the more fruity and oaky the wine.
Steve Heimoff said,"Wines that score in the 90s tend to be bigger, riper and probably oakier than those in the 80s. That’s the way the system works."
I am pleased to hear such transparency from a wine critic. This same problem has been discussed within wine competition circles as well.
Fact is that when you taste dozens, often hundreds, of wine in one single sitting, your palate becomes fatigued. As a result, only big oak and fruit shine through.
But does that mean that if your wine is not big, ripe and oaky, you may as well not bother submitting it for review?
Thankfully, there has been a movement towards lighter, elegant, food-friendly wines in the past few years. Certainly the sommeliers and
independent wine shops that hand sell wines have helped grow the sales of these wines. Countless wine distributor reps, the often unfairly maligned workhorses of the wine trade, have told the stories of these wines and secured a place on the wine list or retail shelf as a result.
These are wines with a story. A story about the people who made the wine and why they made it, as well as about the place the wine was made.
Yes, there are certainly the retail accounts as well as wine consumers that base their buying decisions on critic scores alone.
But fortunately, I have found an equal number of trade buyers and consumers who are more interested in the wine's story and what food would pair well with it.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I've stopped buying wine based on scores. I now buy only wine that I've tasted or that has been recommended to me by someone I trust.
Nice post, thanks!
I actually cringe when I am with a supplier or a salesperson and they start talking Gambero Rosso glasses or RP or WS points. We are there in front of a client with an open bottle of wine, what more do we need? Maybe a story about the place or the winemaker, but to puppet scores from a source far away from the front lines is useless, in my opinion. Selling on weakness, not on passion = absurd.
Thank you for the truth
I can understand your frustration. I have just one problem: I *like* big reds! Really enjoy them.
I also like light elegant but flavorful wines like burgundies. Flavorful is the key.
It's hard, tho, to taste big wines and delicate wines in the same tasting - the big wines' bold personality will of course overwhelm one's judgement.
Solution? Separate them somehow so reviewers can mentally and deliberately switch gears. How?
Dunno....!
"Thankfully, there has been a movement towards lighter, elegant, food-friendly wines in the past few years. Certainly the sommeliers and
independent wine shops that hand sell wines have helped grow the sales of these wines."
Amen, sista! :-)
McWong,
Doesn't look like you are the one with a problem here. Liking big reds has been the status quo and these wines are easy to find everywhere. Many big reds have the coveted critic scores so they have historically sold well.
Separating the big, brawny wines from the more elegant wines would be difficult.
Maybe the real point here is to not be dependent on critic scores when purchasing wine.
Amy Atwood:
Like others, you suggest not relying on scores when buying wine. But why do people use scores? Because they have few other resources for deciding. Shelf-talkers are marketing, reviewer language is obtuse, tastes vary, and the casual drinker just doesn't know enough to choose.
So they hope the scorecard will help. And if they like big wines, it sometimes does help. Tho not always: I often drink highly rated wines that turn out to be thin and listless.
Maybe one lesson is not to believe the ratings for *low-rated* wines -- they are often quite unreliable too. If you've had a wine recommended to you by a friend, don't hesitate because it only got an 88 in WS.
The real ultimate lesson is to drink a lot of different things, and never say "I don't like...[wine category]" like sweet wines, or red wines, or white wines, or pinots or zins or whatever. Experiment.
No help to the casual drinker who doesn't want to go down that path, though!
Yes, I agree that wine consumers need input on which wines to buy. It is a vast and confusing playing field out there.
But the explosion of wine information online makes it possible for consumers to access ample info online: consumer reviews, wine blog reviews, critic reviews, as well winemaker notes, etc.
Searching for and reading wine reviews online is fool's errand.
All reviews are subjective to begin with. One reviewer's 95 point Chardonnay is another's over-oaked disaster. Who's right? Who knows?
And who has the time? That's why the 100 point system is so popular: it saves time. It takes thinking out of the buying decision.
When it comes to buying unfamiliar wine there are 3 choices:
1. Grab a bottle based on the look of the label and/or price.
2. Buy from the winery or at retail tastings.
3. Find a wine shop where you can talk to knowledgeable people who care about the wine they sell.
Dave you just made opposing points. Subjective palates produce meaningless scores and everybody uses them to simplify buying. Well which is it?
Wine has been marketed for decades as important and complicated and associated with sophistication and success. People have been told they NEED critics to
buy good wines and only an ignorant person would make their own choices. That enabled the rise of Parker and WS. The other problem is indulging the impulse to "rank" wines at competitions. This has led us down the wrong road. There isn't a better orange and a worse apple. Certainly wines have have discernible quality, but much more is made of that than is necessary. Most wines are at an acceptable quality level. What matters more is the
character and style of the wine and what it is best suited for.
Thanks Amy. Just saw this post. As a small producer who does most of my sales through pouring and tasting or the internet, you are absolutely correct. People ask if my wine has been "rated." It is terribly frustrating to say (under my breath) "yes, Steve Heimoff gave me an 88..." or "Wine & Spirits gave me an 88..." Because an 88 is just not acceptable - they have to have a 92 or they won't buy. And while the write ups were complimentary, along the lines of "this is not an over oaked fruit bomb, but an elegant example of how California can produce elegant Bordeaux like wines..." it doesn't matter - the only thing that matters is the score - a 95 wine can have a terrible write up, and yet people will buy.
So, I appreciate your comments because they get to the real problem - lack of education on wine and a lack of anything other than the scores to direct the consumer to good wines. Thank you again!
Post a Comment