Vol.3 No.6 – What’s in a rating?

Dear readers, thought you might enjoy this…sort of, like a root canal! Here is a link to the latest article from The Wine Gourd which mathematically analyzes many facets of wine. Also, in it the link to the prior article that started this is interesting.

To recap, TB still prefers the UC Davis system, why? Because it rates the quality of the wine in various degrees to come up with an overall quality rating. I have used it with novices and it works even with them. The problem with the others is subjectivity.
Under the Davis system, there are just two subjective points, under Parker:
• Color and appearance have 5 points.
• The aroma and bouquet receive up to 15 points.
• The passage of mouth and aftertaste receive up to 20 points.
• Finally, the overall quality level and the potential for future evolution and improvement receive up to 10 points.
I have been in tastings with other 100 point systems that can have 20-25 subjective points. That is the problem: we aren’t judging wine quality, we are letting the taster tell us what he/she likes and frankly, who cares? I certainly don’t since I differ greatly in what Parker looks for in a wine and have been disappointed at times when I buy (used to) based on his or anyone’s ratings.
I would be interested in your opinions and will end with a study that was done showing point escalation or ’rounding up’ to 90 which this article illustrates, although not stated, to me.
For my 50th birthday, we had a party on the Napa Wine Train. Waiting to board I saw this in a gift shop:
Man in tasting room: This wine is awful…worst I have ever tasted!
Pourer: Really? Parker gave it a 90.
Man: I’ll take two cases!
Just as Sideways tarnished Merlot, and embellished Pinot’s (the joke being that Mile’s favorite wine was Cheval Blanc which is predominantly Merlot), ratings are leaving a lot of good wines sitting on retailers shelves.
While I applaud Parker for creating a system that has improved quality of wine (in his early publications there were many wines with mid-80’s scores and until the ’82 Bordeaux, I can’t recall any wine with a rating of 99 or higher), and Michel Rolland’s efforts (although I fear all wines would taste alike if everyone made them to his standards), it is time for the consumer to take control and have the confidence to drink and pour for guests, wines they feel are high quality. The same goes for vintages: there are winners and losers in each one and terroir does make a difference.
That’s how I see it.
P.S. tasting note: last week I opened a bottle of wine, a Rioja I bought a couple of years back, Marques de Riscal Reserva 2007. It was marvelous, particularly for a $20-25 wine. The current release is 2011, I believe. It was full of luscious fruit flavors yet stood up well to a grilled steak. We drank half the bottle that night and using a trick I learned from Carles Pastrana at Clos de l’Obac, a fine Priorat wine, I merely recorked it and left it out, finishing it the next night…and guess what? It was even better, more developed and more intense. No signs of oxidation. A beautiful wine. For those of you not familiar with this wine, it is in the central part of La Rioja, was the first to export the wine, and has a beautiful hotel with it designed by Frank Gehry who designed the Guggenheim in Bilbao. Quite a sight in the middle of nowhere!