How can we get distributors and other wine buyers to get beyond their 90-point obsession?
Bulletin: Just in (8:05 a.m. California time, Oct. 8): “TTB ANNOUNCES ESTABLISHMENT OF HAPPY CANYON OF SANTA BARBARA VITICULTURAL AREA.” We knew that was coming. I blogged about it more than a year ago.
* * *
I got an email the other day from a winery representative who complained about some of my scores. “The last 4 months of reviews have been in the low 80’s and we have been getting much higher scores from wine competitions and other publications for the same vintages of wines,” the person wrote, asking, “The reason for my email is concern that our wines are somehow getting cooked, or something, from here to there. Can I give you a call to see what we can do differently to insure the wines arrive fresh?”
I want to blog on this, because so many important issues are at stake. To begin with, I double-checked my scores for the wines since June 1 and discovered I’d given 87 points to a Cab, 86 points to a Chardonnay, a pair of 84s to a Zin and Syrah, and a couple of 83s. One or two of the wines did indeed score in the low 80s, but I emailed the P.R. person back that 87, 86, 84 and even 83 are not “low 80s” but mid- to high 80s. To this, the person responded, “Our distributors and many of the wine buyers look at anything below an 86 as a ‘low score.’”
What can I say. I can’t teach remedial arithmetic to distributors. All I can do is point out that 87 and 86 are not low scores and neither is 85 or even 84 points. All are “very good” and “good” scores by Wine Enthusiast’s definition. Of course, if a wine scores 85 points and retails for $50, then there is a problem, but it’s not my problem, it’s the problem of the people at the winery who establish the price.
Another issue that really gets my goat is when a winery rep tells me, “Parker (or ____, fill in the blank) really liked this wine, and it got a double bronze at the Cleveland International Wine Fair, so how come you only gave it 87 points?” Well, at the risk of being obvious, let me point out that my name is not Parker or Cleveland or anybody or anything else. It’s Heimoff. I don’t check in with other critics before I make a review. Just sayin’…
The final issue involved in this situation is shipping or, to be more precise, wines getting cooked in the back of a UPS or FedEx truck during a heat wave. For many years, I’ve urged wineries to check the 7-day forecast before sending samples out for review, and I’m glad to say they’re listening. This September, the quantity of incoming wines was at a near-record low, because September is our hottest month and we did in fact have several heat waves. I was happy to see my storage closet actually empty out at one point.
What am I supposed to do if a wine suffers from heat damage? Obviously, if I know for sure it’s cooked, I can call the winery and request a resend, and I’ve done that. But I can’t always tell. Many California wines, especially red ones, are so overripe and soft anyway that they might as well be heat-treated — are the raisins from shriveled clusters or a hot truck? I also reason to myself that, if I started asking wineries to resubmit wines that just might have suffered from one problem or another, I’d basically be increasing the number of wines I taste by a huge percentage, and even then, how could I justify leaving a score at “83” unless I’d tasted the wine at least half a dozen times, so I could swear that I’d done my best to be absolutely, positively sure that it was really the wine, and not something external to it? But obviously, I’m not going to do that. I think for the most part that wineries need to take the responsibility for getting me (and all reviewers) their wines in the best shape they can. That’s their job.
But back to those pesky distributors. It’s a cliche to say that anything below 90 is dead on arrival. I’m not sure where that came from, historically, but it’s a horrible development. I don’t think that’s why Parker invented the 100-point scale and I know for sure that at Wine Enthusiast, we don’t turn our noses up at an 86 point wine. 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. But that doesn’t mean that a 95 point Pinot Noir is better for drinking tonight with lamb than an 87 point Pinot Noir. That’s what the distributors don’t understand. And what I don’t understand is how to get the word out that the 90 point threshold is not some magical, absolute event horizon, the dividing line between Heaven and Hell. It’s just a number. If you have any ideas of how to de-criminalize scores in the 80s, let me know, but please, don’t suggest doing away with the 100-point system altogether. That’s a non-starter. I think it has to do with educating distributors and point-of-sale people, both on-premise and off-premise. It’s a simple message to deliver to the customer: “Dear Sir or Madame, this wine is better for drinking tonight. I assure you.” If the customer doesn’t trust the seller, then that’s where work is needed, not in the scoring system.
October 8th, 2009 at 1:37 am
Steve, you’ve just made the case for why I do not, and have never, used numerical scores for rating wines.
October 8th, 2009 at 4:25 am
Steve,
I am confused on the scoring system. Here you make a mid-80s review sound positive, but in a blog just a few days back you said this,
“First, let me start with a general observation that wines scoring between 83 points and 86 points are, by Wine Enthusiast definition, “good.” And the definition of “good,” in our view, is “Decently made, with varietal identity, serviceable. At most, minor deficiencies.” Now, there’s nothing wrong with a “serviceable” wine, but my Webster’s dictionary defines “serviceable” as “useful; usable; durable; ready for use,” which is not exactly a glowing endorsement. For example, if you drive a car, you probably want something that’s more than “useful.”
That doesn’t sound nearly as appealing as the description in this blog. Help me out with this….
Adam Lee
Siduri Wines
October 8th, 2009 at 5:14 am
What hell hath been wrought…
October 8th, 2009 at 5:31 am
Steve,
Face it: the industry uses critic scores to sell wine. Why do wine critics make believe that this is not the case?
And if you are using scores to sell wine–in America, where the biggest and the best are paramount considerations–then score “inflation” is a cinch.
You can’t get the word out because no one wants toi listen to reason–just the scores, please.
October 8th, 2009 at 6:31 am
Steve, if I told you that my wife & I drank and enjoyed an unrated Spanish wine as an everyday wine does that make us unworthy? If I went to collect a certain wine that I wanted to hold for a decade or so I would make darn sure I had a winner that was highly rated but if I am going drink a wine the first and most important number right now is the price and do I enjoy drinking it.
If someone is going into a retail store to buy a bottle for dinner this weekend and that person doesn’t want to spend more than $20 do they care that their favorite wine “only” got a 84 while the wine next to it on the shelf got an 87 but is priced at $24.95? Do your readers think that this person would dig a little deeper for those extra $5 so they got an extra 3 point wine?
Do your readers really think that a consumer would choose a Cab rated 88 over say an Albarino if they were buying wine to have with a fish dinner?
They had better start reading more of the harvest reports right now. In 2011 or even 2012 when we see the 09 released the current tactics of wineries will play great havoc with “the rating system”. If they think the general wine drinker is confused now they will be lost then…I totally agree that in the past when the only point of competition was how a wine got rated I can see the fixation but guys its all about pricing right now.
October 8th, 2009 at 7:10 am
Adam, what I meant was that most of the wines I drink everyday are serviceable wines, and I think they’re what most people around the world drink. I have no problem drinking an $8, 85 point wine with the kind of stuff I eat: broiled chicken with broccoli, pasta and sausages, pita bread stuffed with fried tofu and beans, etc. etc. And I drive a 7 year old Toyota. I wouldn’t want to drive a clunker (e.g. an 81 point car) but I wouldn’t want to drive a Porsche either. I can’t tell you how many cheap wines I’ve drunk with food in my life, because 99% of the time it’s not about the wine, it’s about relaxing and having a good time. Having said all that, I do wrestle with the implications of the 100 point system. It does lead to a certain amount of confusion. But like I’ve said many times, it’s just another form of judgment, and all wine writing is ultimately a form of judgment. I don’t think puffs or stars or a UC Davis 20 point system is any different. If the 100 point system disappeared and was replaced by a Connoisseur’s Guide puff system, the distributors would say they can’t sell anything that gets fewer than 3 puffs! So bear with me while I think about the 100 point system and my thoughts on it continue to evolve.
October 8th, 2009 at 7:28 am
Maybe I’m too much of an optimist, but it could very well be that winery genuinely thought the wine would have received a higher score and were concerned that some external factor, other than Steve Heimoff’s personal taste, got in the way of that happening. What I pick up from your post is a degree of cynicism, which is certainly expected–I know you must put up with a lot of malarkey from producers, distributors, et al on a daily basis. However, I don’t necessarily agree this is an issue of “if I don’t get 90 or higher from every critic my wine sales plummet” more of “This wine received higher scores everywhere else, is it a matter of personal taste or something else?” Just providing different perspective to your anecdote.
October 8th, 2009 at 7:36 am
Steve, you are tilting at windmills if you think you can re-invent the 100 point system or change the way it is used (and abused) by the trade. Critics take 99% of the heat for the system’s failings, but it is the trade – wineries, importers, and distributors – who relentlessly promote the numbers, often to the exclusion of the writing and even the name of the reviewer. How many times have you seen a “Robert Parker” score that in fact came from someone else at the Advocate? My own attempt to rank wineries (not wines) on a 50 to 100 point scale convinced me that the entrenched perceptions (”89 is a kiss-your-sister score” one winemaker opined) are just that. It’s a 90 to 95 point scale for all intents and purposes.
October 8th, 2009 at 7:37 am
Steve,
I argree 100% with you (yet another numerical system) on the ratings scale. It doesn’t matter what the scale is….100 points just happens to be the current model.
I think one part of the equation is that nobody wants to drink a serviceable wine. They have (using your words) “no problem” doing it….but that isn’t what they want to drink. They want to drink the really top notch stuff — for not much $$. So one issue is the desires of the drinking public.
The other issue, I think, is that grade inflation has occured some, and the quality of wine has improved some, so that an 86 or 87 point wine looks worse than it used to look. And, unfortunately, once we have all gone there….it is almost impossible to go back.
Just my thoughts. Thanks for another great blog!
Adam Lee
Siduri Wines
October 8th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Why does the system have to reward wines that are “bigger, riper and probably oakier” as you phrase it? Perhaps these are destined to age longer, but if they don’t come into balance like the less structured 87 point wine is upon release, what’s the point? I’m convinced there are really two scales. Good to great wines that are elegant, balanced and medium bodied on release score mid 80s to low 90s at best, some of which may actually age quite a while. More extracted, ripe wines are rated 90 and up unless the winemaker really messed up. Not that it matters, but when I score the latter type in my cellar tracker notes, it’s always around an 87-89 when tasted young. Maybe it will evolve, but I’m not writing for collectors, I’m writing for myself and how something is drinking now. High extract, creamy oak and fruit is pretty good tasting when well-made, but not special or unique. It’s a nice grape-based cocktail.
As silly as Just Wine Points is, there is one thing they do that’s sensible. They evaluate a wine in context. Of course, they give a 99 score to an $8 wine that succeeds at its goal of being quaff-able. But a price-correlated QPR note would be helpful in general. Why not note the value offered by each wine? Is not an 85 point $75 wine a poor value? Scoring on the accepted paradigm–how much stuffing you can put in a wine in the hopes it will age forever–is not that helpful in general. Maybe complex and medium bodied, optimal in 3-5 years should be the paradigm instead. The value a wine offers for its price and style is what matters to the majority of buyers. But the 5% of big spenders who spend 90% of the wine $$$ dictate what the paradigm must be, I suppose.
October 8th, 2009 at 9:50 am
I’m gonna put that on the back label of every wine I bottle from now on…
“Dear Sir or Madame, this wine is better for drinking tonight. I assure you.”
October 8th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Scott, as long as I get my dividend!
October 8th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Note to Paulg–
It is a 90-95 point system for those who think that way. The best bargains are in the sub-90 point territory, however, because they tend to be wines that rise above their price point peers and offer lots and lots of enjoyment.
Now, if we are talking about $100 wines, whatever the variety or provenance, than 90 points does not even begin to get in the door. Now, admittedly, I am not a points-only buyer, but unless a wine at that price is both up into the 90s and comes with a description that fits my palate, I am not interested.
Good example: recent Ch. Angelus and Ch. Pavie-Maquin wines have rated in the 90s to upper 90s in past vintages, yet, both those wines are too ripe and fat for my personal taste. Yes, they are very deep, rich, mouthfilling wines, and I agree that they are great wines for some palates. Just not for mine.
Scores, price and character factor into my buying descriptions, and while some retailers and some consumers chase points without discrimination, I suspect that most of us do not. Maybe that makes me Pollyanna, but I have more faith in the average punter than to think of them all as sheep.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Gregg underscores the key point: bang for the buck. As you’ve noted in the past, Jerry Mead always awarded two scores, the second one reflecting value. I would even dispense with the absolute score, mostly because of the bias you describe built into the system. When wine is evaluated in a stand alone situation, a bigger, bolder, riper (plus balance) wine results in more points. But it doesn’t mean that this wine will pair best or even well with food as you point out. Since you appreciate this, why not change your method of scoring wines?
This approach always set Warren Mason’s ~Sydney International Wine Competition~ apart. As they note in their ~About Us~ page: “WE ARE LOOKING FOR WINES THAT WILL AGREEABLY COMPLEMENT FOOD. One of the main aims of the Competition is to offer consumers independent information to help in their choice of wines more likely to enhance the pleasures of the daily dining experience and, by so doing, to add enjoyment and contentment to their everyday lives. This is the main service the Competition offers.” They also follow other enlightened procedures like moving away from varieties to style of wine by body.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Charlie,
It isn’t that I disagree with what you post, it’s just that after having had the experience of selling wine for decades, as opposed to just talking about how good or bad they are, I can say without hesitation that scores sell wine–and the higher the score, the better the sales are likely to be.
The reasons for this are many, including but not limited to score (grade) inflation and the arbitrary nature of the whole concept of scoring, lazy distributors, lazy retailers, and lazy consumers.
I predict that there’s money for the next person who creates the 500 point scale, but whoever does it should have it exquisitely timed so that when 450 becomes the established low point, the creator of the system should have but a few weeks left on this earth and can leave quietly without having to think in the thousands…
October 8th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Stop blaming distributors Steve! Critics, producers, distributors, and consumers alike are to blame for the infatuation with scores.
October 8th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Wines that are engineered from overipe grape get bigger scores. I agree with this statement Steve. Most reviewers are afraid of higher acid, lighter bodied, less oaky wines and thus rate them lower. The ironic thing is these are the wines one enjoys with dinner AND thse are the wines that will cellar for a much longer period than those of the massively constructed.
Lower sugars = more natural acid = more stable wine = longer cellaring ability = more complex wine.
October 8th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Randy, I don’t think critics are “afraid” of lighter-bodied wines. I think the 100 point system has developed its own vernacular, as it were…100 points means very ripe, full-bodied and (probably) oaky in a table wine. As long as consumers understand that, there shouldn’t be a problem.
October 8th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
I work at a large wine store in Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Yesterday, a customer came in with a sheet he had complied of 90+ ratings on wines he was interested in. He asked about a particular Shiraz from Australia that had a 91. I took him over to the wine, he looked at it and said, “Oh, I have had that wine and I don’t like it.” He did not purchase it. I had to laugh at the fact that he was willing to buy a wine with the rating that he wanted, until he realized he had drank it–and did not like it. It’s really a shame that wine buyers are so numbers driven, because, as I think you can see here, numbers don’t mean squat if you have already tasted a highly rated wine.
October 8th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
compiled, that is
October 8th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Steve, whoa, you just blew my mind. I feel like how Keanu Reeves always looks. Being cynical, I tend to think the 100 point rating is a measure of high ripeness, texture (oak, alcohol) and extract, with the highest ratings for wines that have large amounts of all these, yet are in (perhaps precarious, metastable) balance. So it’s not just my cynicism, it’s by design it works out like this.
Then, your reviews have two parts: numbers for the collectors, and descriptions for the drinkers. In that case, don’t change what you’re doing. I like prices where they are for the stuff I like. Hopefully the producers who get 89′d will stay afloat while offering good value.
October 8th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Steve,
As long as consumers understand that the 100 point system is rating only certain wines produced in a certain style everything is fine?
Are you saying that anyone who prefers another style of wine should not read WE, WS, WA and all the other 100-point reviewers?
If so, that’s a breath of fresh air on the subject that I haven’t experienced before. Thanks for that.
October 8th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Thomas, I’m not saying that. People should understand the context of the 100 point system. To give an extreme example, Mouton might get 100 points even though it’s nowhere near ready to drink, while a 5th Growth might get 89 points and be far better tonight with the beef.
October 8th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Greg, not sure why I blew your mind, but that’s cool. For me, when I taste an inexpensive wine that gets a good score I’m just as happy as when I taste something I give high 90s to. Just had some of the new Bogle wines and the 07 Cabernet, with a California appellation, was wonderful. It costs $11 officially and you can probably find it for less. It’s what I call a “sommelier wine,” as in, “Sommeliers, buy this by the case.”
October 8th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Oh, I see, Steve.
Your Mouton/5th Growth example shines a beautiful light on the value of those numbers. 100 if you can show promise–89 if you can deliver tonight.
Who’s the system catering too, or in what context does it matter?
October 8th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
I have to agree with the statement that scores are a tool of lazy distributors, retailers, and consumers. I want to know how did people sell wines before the 100 point system became so popular? We all know the answer, the small independant wine broker who cared enough to know the wines he was selling. The problem is that the wal mart mentality has made everything about price. Service and knowledge is what is lacking and that is why scores are so relied upon. The system will not change until retailers begin to take a stand, and sell wines that they believe are good and fit what a person is looking for wheather it be a everyday or collectible. And to Adam I love your wine and will always drink them and sell them no matter the score.
October 8th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
TJ: wine critics need a short-hand way to communicate their feelings about a wine…right now the 100-pt system rules. The abusers of the system (should it actually exist) are not the critics but the producers, distributors, and retailers. While the critics’ ability can be called into question should his scores diverge too much from the rest of the scorers, it is not about money for them. For the other folks, money is certainly the most obvious thing that is affected by the score.
Steve: do you have a separate 100-pt scale for each variety? or are more obscure whites and reds calibrated against a Chard and Cab/Pinot scale?
October 8th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Lets face it. The industry on the whole, Producers, Wholsalers, Retailers both on-premise and off premise got fat and lazy. It used to be that retailers had first hand knowledge of flavor profile, Waiters, Chefs, Sommeliers, wine shop stewards and Wineries explained the wine in terms defined by flavor and balance, knowledge of pedigree, Chateau, history and vintage events.
Professionals were employed and kept heir paychecks by continually educating self on vintage, prodution,vinification & viticultural methods. Passion for quality of the juice drove the market place. Shelf talkers were descriptive anecdotes of the shop keeper and through all this the consumer became educated when they bought a bottle of wine; weather it was value, mid-range or collectable.
Then we got lazy, applied a number to a bottle of grape juice that summed up its totality from vine to wine. Waiters, Chefs, Sales Reps, shop owners, and consumers know less today about the how and why of any particular wine because we stopped at the score and forgot how to speak of, describe, and pair wine for the consumer to enhance their selection and experience.
Ask a waiter at any restaurant and 80% will refer to a score. Ask a wine shop steward and 80% will refer to a score. The sales rep sells 100% of the time using a score the buyers will always ask about scores and the winery presentation will always 100% of the time include the score.
It has become a crutch that deters ones belief in ones self about their knowledge of and willingness to learn about wine and help others expand their own opinion, knowledge, and experience. It has made us all numb and dumb and if he was alive today, Shakespear may have substituted, “critic” for “lawyer” in Henery the VI.
October 8th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Steven: “do you have a separate 100-pt scale for each variety?” great question. I’m working on that.
October 8th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
I feel like I just walked into the middle of Fellini movie. A guy tells us that waiters are lazy, chefs and everyone else in the sales chain know less about wine than they used to. I would dispute those assertions, but where I find myself wandering in the imagery wilderness is how those conclusions lead to a suggestion to kill all the critics.
Apparently, the writer is unaware that the 100-point system was not invented by Mr. Parker but existed 50 years ago. Apparently, the writer is unaware that there was also a 200 point system or that a very large part of the wine criticism community fifty years ago routinely used the 20 point system and that debates about its value and whether it was meant to be a hedonistic system or scientific system were as much a part of the wine discussions of the day as it is today.
Kill all the critics? Sure, right after we kill all the sommeliers, chefs, sales reps, restaurant owners and retailers who misuse the 100 point system and apparently don’t know anything about wine.
Sorry, but all of this is too surreal for prime time.
October 8th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
You can’t hand-sell everything and we all know that most sales people, whether at the distributor or retail level, will take the path to least resistance when making a sale.
For us small-ish wineries, we don’t need this path as we can focus on independent retail that can hand sell our wines until there is a foothold with the consumer and they start to repeat. In fact, this is our exact model of evangelical consumer that has far more influence than any critic. Sorry, Steve. The number one motivator to drive an sale in our market is, “I tried it. I liked it. I bought it.” Followed by, “A friend turned me on to this wine.” Way down on the list of motivators are scores and accolades.
Not long ago at a trade tasting, the winery next to me went on and on about points this wine scored and medals this other wine won. The buyer, after trying his wines, shuffled next door to my table at which time I told him our wines have no medals and no scores whatsoever. He thanked me.
October 8th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
The system is obscure and corrupt. It is like all other mathematical configurations to try to analyze and frame subjective taste from individual to individual to maximize general mass consumption and manipulation.
It is a paid marketing tool and it should be eliminated all together.
It is not a guidance tool it is instead a blinding instrument that underestimates the power that each one of us has to able to say whatever they feel about a specific wine.
And try to be forgiven if you state in public that a 98 point wine sucks…
Drink and enjoy whatever you like and do not feel guilty if someone tells you that it only got a 82!
October 8th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
This is exactly why I have not submitted any of my wines for scores these first two years! The system does not work, except for lazy sales people! Why do I come to your store, restaurant etc, let you try the wine, offer to come and meet with staff? It’s so you all can talk about the wine, how it taste, what you like about it etc, etc!
I was in a retailer the other day poring 2005 Syrah. Before they tasted I heard comments spoken out loud, while I was right there saying “another old Syarh”, “We don’t need anymore Syarh”. Then they tried it. It got quite, they looked around at each other, drank some more. Then one asked, “How much is this?” I said, do you like it? “yes, I love it! What is it blended with?” I said, no blend. How much do you think it should retail? “This is 100% Syrah?” I said yes, it retails for $21.00, your cost is $14. The main buyer, then says ‘Yeah but it’s still Syrah and we can’t sell Syrah unless Parker or someone gave it a 90 plus!” My point here is simple. All three guys liked or loved the wine, yet none, believed they could sell it! There is so much belief that it’s got to have a score or be a cab for them to sell it. And I can show you many retailers like this.
But I believe in my wines! I believe there is more to wine the Cab or Chard. But we, the industry needs to show the people the way. It sad, but this person than contacted you Steve is right! If it’s under an 88, it’s a low score by the standards of the system.
October 9th, 2009 at 6:54 am
I find melding Greg’s “Walmart” description and George’s “fat and lazy” comments best serves my arguement. Yes, there’s many, many more labels out there for dist’s and shops to become familiar with but we have become complacent in this industry. Lazy, possibly but look at the macro culture we wade through daily as a measure of our little micro world of wine.
We as American consumers “want it all”. As we pull up in our 9,000 pound SUV up to parking spots that used to fit, we ooze from our chinese leather into our favorite all-in-one wineshop where we expect spoon-fed “90+ pointers” all day long. Almost like the fast-food of fine wine. The rating scale should market to the fat and lazy. It’s right up their alley.
October 9th, 2009 at 7:13 am
David, your sad story serves as a morality tale for our times. The behavior of that retail staff is shocking. I feel bad for you. The answer, as I’ve always said, lies in educating gatekeepers (including retailers) to educate customers. If the retailers are too lazy to do that, I don’t know what to say.
October 9th, 2009 at 7:59 am
Not sure why you focused on the wine distributors. They play a role in this tragi-comedy, as we all do, but it is only one role.
I have worked in most aspects of the wine business: restaurant buyer, retail manager, distributor rep, Distributor manager, national accounts manager, and now launching my own online retail shop and CA wholesale business.
I have found that the retail buyers are your staunchest supporters, Steve, in the scores debacle. Many will flat out tell you they only buy wines with 90 pts or above. I won’t name names but many well known retail chains increasingly have this policy (except for their own private labels or direct import brands).
They have decided that anything below 90 pts or (god forbid) no scores, is a handsell to the consumer and they don’t want handsells.
The critic scores have historically helped overwhelmed wine consumers navigate a busy playing field of wine choices. But I feel a slow, long wave coming to shore.
The access to instant online information and increase in user reviews are starting to make an impression. As well as a new generation of wine lovers who are not as invested in traditional press and wine scoring.
I believe there will be a slow shift away from complete reliance on 90 pts scores from wine critics. They will remain part of the equation but will not determine buying decisions as they have previously.
I sell wines based on their story and their taste.
If a buyer specifically requests it, I provide critic scores.
Cheers
Amy Atwood
October 9th, 2009 at 8:07 am
Amy, I agree that a younger generation is turning away from scores and more towards peer recommendations and online reviews. What I wonder is if their behavior will change and become more traditional as they age? After all, that’s what usually happens when people in the 20s hit their 30s and 40s. They become more like their parents (even if they hate to admit it). So I wouldn’t be surprised if point scores are around for quite some time.
October 9th, 2009 at 8:10 am
Consumers who choose wines on their own, are looking for a guide. If wine marketers can do no better than to let this”guide’ be the point system, then who is to blame? I don’t believe that the current system is any more or less an “indicator” for the average end-user than advice from a knowledgeable retailer or sommelier. It is based on someone’s opinion, and like so many opinions and body parts…we all have them. I think an answer might be to have wine makers and marketers give the consumer a better, more fully developed interpretation of why they believe their products taste a certain way and why they do or do not go with food, etc.(maybe a label addendum)Then upon tasting, consumers can then decide who has the same basic opinions of product that they do and use that source as a guide in future purchases. Thus moving people more into descriptors and less into arbitrary scoring. Knowledge and trust.Trust is a sure-fire way to build and hold consumers.
October 9th, 2009 at 8:11 am
Steve and David–
The answer is simple. Go to a different wine store as fast as you can. There are loads and loads of good retailers in the San Francisco area and elsewhere. This is not a monolithic tale.
And, these peeps complaining that the industry has become lazy don’t have a clue. Those of you old enough to remember fair trade will also remember that those were the days when no one had to compete and no one did.
Rnady and David chose to enter a marketplace in which there are 3000 bonded wineries in CA alone and thousands more in WA and OR and tens of thousands more around the globe. If you want to compete in that market, with all of its warts and imperfections, stop complaining and work harder.
Ask yourselves how it is that some wineries can find their ways to places like Solano Cellars and Weimax and Traverso’s and Vintage Wine and Spirits and you cannot. Ask yourselves why some wineries can sell their wines all the time, recession or not. The scoring systems that you deride have been in existence for decades. They obviously help consumers work their ways through tens of thousands of choices, and by so doing, they sell a hell of a lot of wine.
We can all agree that a lazy wine merchant is no merchant at all. No one is going to argue that point with you. It is obvious on its face. So, when you encounter one, do the smart thing and get out of that store as fast as you can. Need a list of twenty good stores locally? Just ask Steve–this is his house and he knows the answer to that question.
Need a list of a hundred good wine merchants around the country? Just ask the fans of this blog. They know. But for goodness sake, stop complaining about the louts and about how badly the world is treating you. No one owes you a living–least of all the consumers who actually think that wine evaluations help them drink better wine.
October 9th, 2009 at 8:13 am
Charlie: Harsh.
October 9th, 2009 at 8:34 am
Steve, re: mind blown, I was just surprised how matter of factly you describe the points system as having its own vernacular. You didn’t say high point wines are superior, or that you even prefer them. Maybe you do, but my interpretation is thus that points are not wholly a hedonic rating. You are comparing a wine against a set of ‘ideal’ characteristics in the system. If one asked a different critic about how they use points, especially one who uses hedonistic and pleasure commonly in reviews, I suspect the idea of a 100 point vernacular would not come up at all.
Have you worked out a 100 point scale for Cabernet Franc yet? Curious minds inquire. Would Cheval Blanc in a Franc-dominated vintage be the benchmark?
October 9th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Harsh? I suppose that is one way to look at it. Honest and balanced would be another way.
This particular blog entry has seen everyone and his brother all up and down the chain called lazy, stupid, unknowing and uncaring–and by the way, Steve, that includes thee and me.
Now, we are big boys and will continue to do honest evaluations of wines, complete with the very descriptions that some of the commenters here seem to find lacking in wine writing. I have to wonder if some of these fine folk have ever read your reviews. Lazy? No. Unknowing? No. Uncaring? No. Focused only on points? No.
I don’t find it harsh to point out reality to these folks who are blissfully unaware of the world they live in, who have no seeming knowledge of how moribund the wine sales world was three or four decades ago, who somehow think that Robert Parker invented wine criticism and scoring systems.
I just don’t get why Randy, for instance, who has a perfectly strong and consistent manner of making wine, would essentially attack all those who do not agree with him. I don’t get why he, even in exaggeration, insults all wine consumers with visions of 9,000 point Hummers pulling up in front of wine stores.
The wine-loving world is made up of millions of consumers. They need not be insulted. The wine selling world is made up of all kinds of people–many of them absolutely concerned and informed and willing and eager to share their knowledge and opinions. You wrote about one of your favorite merchants just weeks ago. Yet, he and everyone else in the trade has been belittled in the remarks above. I object to that kind of broadside.
Funny thing is, I would be very surprised if you do not share much of that opinion given our conversations both privately and here regarding ethics, the value of thoughtful wine evaluations, the good people who we have met and continue to meet in this industry.
Harsh? Oh, well. Sometimes the truth is not pretty.
October 9th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Charlie,
Nothing you posted addresses the fact that points sell wine. And the only reason that points can and do sell wine is through multi-layered laziness.
You are 100 % correct when you suggest to others to shop elsewhere when the retailer is an idiot. But that still doesn’t change the fact that points sell wine.
You are 100% correct about the history of points, critics, and how wine has been sold throughout the decades. But that does not change the fact that points sell wine.
You are 100% correct that many people spouting off don’t have a clue how the industry operates–I am not one of those people, and I’m telling you that points sell wine.
Again, I ask: why do wine reviewers refuse not to believe that points sell wine? If points did not sell wine, why would wineries, distributors, retailers, and sycophant consumers salivate over the next WA issue and the shelf talkers that follow?
PS: as I understand it, the 20-point system promoted by Amerine, et al., was an attempt to marry science with knowledge that concerned itself with identified quality. It was not designed to use as a base for wine reviews in magazines. It still is used as a more technical measure than the 100-point system, which no matter how it may have been designed, has become a hedonistic, personal-opinion system. It is what it is, and it sells wine.
October 9th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Sorry, “refuse to believe…”
October 9th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Thomas: You asked “why do wine reviewers refuse not to believe that points sell wine?” (You have an extra “not” in there but I think I know what you meant.) Since I’m a wine reviewer, I can answer. I don’t refuse to believe it. I know it’s true. I think it’s carried to extremes sometimes, and if I had a wine store, I would use only my own (and my staff’s) recommendations.
October 9th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Steve,
When I owned a wine store in Manhattan my partner and I refused to carry any wines that were rated by anyone. We did the traveling, we did the tasting, we selected, and we were responsible for talking to and selling the wines to our customers. If something on the shelf happened to get rated, we stopped shelving it, buying only as special order for people who came to love it before the ratings.
Every staff member was involved in the tasting and selecting process, which we did by consensus, and which we came to after discussing the wine’s merits and how it might go over with our customer base, and for its price.
We gave every customer a print out that told them about the wine, the region, and the food pairings that we thought would work.
Maybe we didn’t make any money because we didn’t have the magazine-rated wines to attract the cherry pickers, but after years of selling wine to retailers, I couldn’t operate any other way and maintain a passion for the product.
October 9th, 2009 at 11:30 am
If a lazy wine merchant is no merchant at all than I guess they are Cosco?
October 9th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Charlie points sell wine straight through the chain. I have worked in both wholsale and retail and witnessed it first hand. To say that they do not is just turning a blind eye. Go into your local wine merchant, better yet go in to a big box store or super market nad just listen to the other shoppers talk. You will hear someone say “buy this one it got 90 points”
October 9th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Reliance on scores would not be as great as it is if wine stores would do more sampling events a la a Farmers Market (that’s another story when it comes to wine). The Wine House in LA does tasting “festivals” all the time and their patrons use them to determine which wines they enjoy most.
October 9th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Charlie, not harsh. It’s fact you share! that’s why I’m out here one store, one restaurant, one customer at a time! I love wine, the diversity of the people that drink it, the stories that get shared. Maybe we’ll get a chance to share a glass!
October 9th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Friday, October 9, 2009
Dear Mr. Heimoff:
I used to work in the E. and J. Gallo Winery for many years and learned very quickley that every wine and every thing has a price. Quality
versus value versus price is always a determining factor when selecting a good and very drinkable bottle of wine. Remember that Gallo built their wine business and the wine business that exists today buy producing some great valued and quality wines for the money. The American consumer gravitated towrds those low cost and fine quality wines and the wine business began to grow by leaps and bounds.
In fact some of the wines that I have had over the years would be worthy of a another try because the first bottle was such a nice surprise. I would recommend using the surprise factor along with a low score / low price marketing campaign. Remember that we are living in some pretty tough economic times so that it should be easy to persuade value wine buyers to give these low scored wines a try.
In addition, the on premise business or hotel and restaurant industry are beginning to change many of their restaurant menus and wine lists so that they can survive and compete in these tough economic times. I am sure that they would welcome the opportunity to learn about new wines that come with a low score and a low price along with the quality and value of a surprise purchase of the shelf or from the wine list.
All the Best,
Glenn Rizzelli
October 9th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
I’m a little offended by many comments. First, I’m young (28) and work for a small, family-owned distributor (we do represent some of the wines made by commenters on this thread), so I’ll just get that out of the way. I work hard, north of 60 hours a week and on top of that, use most (all, according to my girlfriend) of my free time learning about wine through drinking, reading and discussing.
You asked where the idea that anything below 90pts is dead on arrival? I would be willing to bet my yearly wage that our school system has something to do with this. Anything greater than or equal to a 90 was an “A,” thus making an 89 a “B” (please no kumbaya moment on the virtue of a “B,” I don’t remember job recruiters knocking down the door for guys with a 3.0 or lower). Not to forget, there is also a wide-ranging availability of 90pt wines from a slew of reviewers that allow the consumer to not dip below 90 if they so wish.
To lob grenades at other sectors of the industry without having any introspection is a little naive. Let me ask you, is the Wine Enthusiast a worthwhile tool or publication? What is its value? Would the Wine Enthusiast still be in existence if not for its adherence to a 100-pt scoring system? I agree that wine ratings can be lazy and misused, but it smacks of hypocrisy for the editor of such a magazine to make these allegations. What is the Wine Enthusiast doing to change the current environment? Can I sort your wine reviews by style? No. Can I sort your reviews by rating? Yes. What does this tell me? The Wine Enthusiast thinks more highly of the rating than the style. Steve, you say (I’ll attempt to paraphrase) that big, ripe, over-oaked wines score higher. Can I ascertain that everything in the 83-86 point range is high acid and food-friendly (I’m aware I’m putting words in your mouth)? The answer is probably “no.”
Instead of continuously blaming others for the failings of the system, I’ll offer up some solutions. I think a possibility is to create a stylistic system or other definition to distinguish the wine. Progressive wine lists have been incredibly popular in restaurants, can this system be used as a sortable tool of the on-line reviews? Also, Amazon is incredibly successful at making recommendations (using algorithms, which may not sound romantic, but is very useful), why can’t the Wine Enthusiast use this system to steer customers from one wine they enjoy to another similar wine? Some of these questions may have already been addressed, but if so, I am unaware. I offer these suggestions to you, instead of retailers because they usually don’t have the time or resources to make such changes. Retailers are hamstrung by the economies of scale, rarely having the time to completely explain each wine to each costumer without losing out on other sales. Also, they tend to be responders (to consumers needs) or followers (to demands coming downstream from producers), not leaders. Someone has to go first for the rest to follow, and why shouldn’t that person be someone in your position of power?
October 9th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Theo, I’m not suggesting abandoning the 100 point system. But I’m glad we’re having a conversation about it. As for Wine Enthusiast, I like to think that people also read words, not just look at numbers. I’m talking about the text of my reviews as well as the articles that I and the other writers write. So I believe that, yes, Wine Enthusiast still would be a good, widely read wine magazine even without a 100 point system.
October 9th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
“As for Wine Enthusiast, I like to think that people also read words, not just look at numbers.”
Steve,
Parker and other reviewers say the same thing about their readers. And yes, readers read the words, but distributors and retailers know that the majority of shoppers look at the numbers.
Doesn’t it seem disingenuous to maintain a rating system and then complain about distributors wanting only high scoring wines from that rating system because, as has been said, scores sell wine?
Maybe a reviewer should get a part time job under cover in a store, find out how consumers shop for wine and how retailers and distributors handle the matter of ratings.
October 9th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
what’s the point of comparing rates between wines from different origin as you can see everywhere.
Italian wine 100 rates can not be compared to 100 from a Rutherford !!! not even mentionning the varietal differences.
All this scoring system is purely for commercial purposes . As a consumer, I don’t even know what’s is all about.
The confusiong part is to make the consumer believes a better rate is a better wine as I have seen today when visiting Sebastiani winery in Sonoma.
Please do not confuse consumer .
we should not waste time and enjoy the wonderfull wines of this world.
October 9th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Let’s take a couple of steps back because the discussion has truly become deep and challenging and deserves a bit more perspective.
If one looks at the wine writing in existence forty or fifty years ago, one sees rating systems. The Amerine book of forty years ago lists many of them and they range from 20 points to 200 points, and they included 100 points at that time–long before it gained its position as the widely accepted currency for wine ratings.
Even those magazines that did not use points, did use a multi-tiered system. And the highest rated wines in those tiers were being sought out by the consumers of that day just as the highest rated wines are sought out today.
I would love to be thirty (again), but since I am not and have been collecting for four decades and writing for three and a half, I can tell you that when Robert Balzer gave the Chappellet 1969 Cabernet his highest tier score among the elite of CA Cabs, that wine instantly become a cult item. Now, I am an older guy but I don’t go back much further than that in wine collecting but Mr. Balzer was not new to writing and rating at that point and there were several other publications in existence at the time including Robert Finigan and a newsletter whose name I no longer recall written by Francis Peterson and David Garbellano. Francis Peterson, among other things, is Joel Peterson’s mother.
Wine evaluation goes back even further than that, of course. So, let’s at least agree that ratings are not a new thing.
Secondly, ratings, as I pointed out have always sold wine. It matters not what the rating system was–Finigan’s four-tier system or the 20-point system in use at the Vintners’ Club whose blind tasting results were very central to the attitudes towards wine back in the day.
So, Tom P, and others, no one would or has argued otherwise. Where I get off that train, however, is where Tom P says “the only reason that points can and do sell wine is through multi-layered laziness”. Sorry, my friend, but points also sell wine because they represent the considered, hard-won opinions of responsible critics. And every responsible critic I know and respect also publishes commentary of a sort that addresses your criticisms and also the question raised by Theo about the meaning of 83-86 points. If one wants to know the meaning, read the words. The points do not monolithically mean thin and green wines. They also mean overripe and without fruit or bothered by Brett or indistinguishable as to varietal character or out of balance or a whole host of other things. One has to read the words to know what the score means–and that even applies to baseball games.
Now, I know that 90 points is a magic number for some wines. But, as I pointed out earlier in this discussion, 90 points is useless for wines costing over $100, of which I review quite a few. By the same token, wines in the 85 to 89 point range, for me at least, are often my wines of choice because the best of them deliver amazing QPR (quality to price ratio). The lower the price, the lower the rating needs to be to make the wine well worth buying and enjoying.
The Castle Rock California Pinot Noir at 85 points and $10 is worth knowing about.
And I know (KNOW ABSOLUTELY) that my readers care about wines I designate as “Good Value” because I have had to change my website and print presentation to highlight that designation. It is the single most popular request item in my world, and I am looking forward to automating its finding in my online data base.
Wine is not points alone. Sure points or any other accepted rating methodology sells wine. A few years ago, we designated a very good Cabernet as the CGCW Wine of The Year. The winery told me later that its sales of that wine went faster than any wine in its forty year history. Ratings and recommendations count. Of course they count. How else do you explain the fact that millions of people around the world read them. But, Tom, it is not the points alone for consumers.
Someone, either here on perhaps on Tom Wark’s blog, commented that he does not always like the highest rated CGCW wines, but that he is able to use the descriptions to find well-regarded wines that fit his individual preferences. That is why folks like Steve and I write descriptions.
A final note to Theo: Very thoughtful comments. I would suggest, as I have above, that the words that make up the review are in fact useful to consumers to find other wines that interest them. Wine magazines do not sell wine so they have a very different set of needs than does Amazon. Amazon is not unlike the local men’s clothing store I was in the other day. I was looking for a new suit. Before I got out of the store, they had also tried me with new shoes (”here, these will look better with the suits you are trying on”), new jeans, sweaters and several combinations of shirts and ties that supposedly went with the suit. Ultimately, too much hard sell for me, and I left that store just as I would recommend that anyone leave any wine store that does not get that it is about my needs, not about theirs.
Enough. More to Tom P in the next post.
October 9th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Further to Tom P re Davis 20 Points.
Yes, the original development of the Davis system was pseudo-scientific. I use that term advisedly because there were no “scientific measures” being done. All of the various point awards had to do with observable and thus judgmental and thus subjective analysis.
Now, to be sure, where the defintion of color was “correct for the age and variety of wine”, there was a standard. And where the definition of aroma was “clean, correct for the varietal, free from flaw”, that also was a standard. And, Tom, there was a range of points possible that allowed the observer to decide not only about “correct” but also about attractiveness. Thus, aroma did not score max points just for being free from flaw. A thin Pinot can be free from flaw, but even in the Davis system, an attractive, deep, correct Pinot would score more than a thin, clean, correct Pinot.
The Davis system, however, in its purest form, was developed to help focus the minds of enology students on how to judge the wines they were making. Cleanliness, correctness, balance were the standards, and the wines to which they were directed at the time were not fancy coastal varietals but the jug wine industry that was the most likely place that Davis graduates were going to find employment back then.
Now, for the confusion. The Davis scale was the first widely used scale around here to my recollection, and it very quickly became a hedonistic scale in which a mass of points for correct color no longer was part of the way the 20-point system worked.
Writers of the day who used that system were simply using a precursor to the 100-point system. Anything 18.5 (87.5) and above was hot stuff. That, in fact, was how Parker used the 100-point system when he started. Getting 90 points was a big deal. Now, with grade inflation pushed by the recognition of the 90-point barrier, the percentage of wines scoring 90 and above has reached up to 40% of all wines tasted in some publications.
It seems to me that such a circumstance is a far greater sin against the consumer than the mere existence of the 100 point scale.
October 10th, 2009 at 5:45 am
Charlie,
I believe you have missed my point–or I have not been clear about it.
When I say that the reason points sell wine is because of multi-level laziness, I am not talking about the reviewer’s talents. I am talking about the industry’s (and many consumer’s) sheep-like grabbing at those wines with certain ratings–at the expense of all other wines which may or may not have even been rated.
Producers, distributors, and retailers know the power of those numbers and so, when they complain that certain wines were unfairly scored by a certain reviewer, they simply are pressing their laziness, seeking to get someone else to sell the wine for them: the magazine or reviewer.
You have a long-standing life in the business, and a long-standing view of it. Have you worked on the distribution and retail side? If so, you must be aware that over the decades it is the rare–not the rule–to find interested, passionate retailers who do the legwork. Things have indeed changed on that score and have gotten better, but humans is humans. If you construct a system that claims to be the arbiter of taste, then the general consumer is apt to follow that system rabidly. The distributors and retailers are also apt to make full use of the sales potential of that system.
If you are a reviewer, and you are the baseliune of that system, it is disinegnuous of you to complain when the industry, at whichever level, tries hard to get you to play ball and give the highest rating.
It is also a given under a system, where more and more people seem to be experts, and more and more wines hit the market, and more and more consumers drink wine, that score inflation will take place. Hell, I remember when it was great fun to watch baseball if the game was a 1 to nothing, because the tension usually was the issue. Now, however, it’s the big hitter that matters and so 60 home runs a years is passe (it was, until this years when most players couldn’t locate their steroid pusher).
It seems in human nature to continue to “up” the ante. We are never quiet happy with things as they are, even if they are wonderful as they are.
In this discussion, I am not arguing against the rating system (although I dislike it). I am arguing against Steve’s premise that he can change thinking about it, or that he should try, since he, as a reviewer, is part of why it is the way it is.
October 10th, 2009 at 7:55 am
I presume, Tom, that you brought baseball into this because you are a New Yorker and are laughing up your sleeve about the current situation facing my Red Sox.
Other than that, thanks for the clarification.
October 10th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Charlie,
I didn’t know your fondness for the Red Sox, but glad to oblige
In any case, I’ve never been a Yankee fan–how could I? I grew up in Brooklyn, and was a die-hard young fan until the bastards went to L.A. Never got over that one.
The baseball thing came up because I noticed that this season produced no high number home run hitters, and I believe we all know why.
Thinking of the steroid pusher also gave me this idea–after I posted the above–that a reviewer complaining about distributors using scores to sell wine is like a pusher claiming that he doesn’t create junkies, just provides them with heroin…
October 11th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
“Thomas, I’m not saying that. People should understand the context of the 100 point system.”
There is NO context. The average wine buyer thinks of the 100 point system as a quality index. It’s that simple.
The industry uses the 100 point system because, if they didn’t, the wine business would be a fraction of the size it is now.
The point about people “read the words” as well as the score is true for the tiny percentage of the wine buying public who read the WE, WS, etc. I’d be shocked to discover that even 1% of the wine buying public subscribe to any wine-related publication.
October 12th, 2009 at 8:17 am
I think it is also being forgotten the reason for the rise of reviewers and the resulting 100-pt system. As Elin McCoy clearly states in her book on Parker, Parker rose to fame in the context of a Ralph Nader-esque consumer advocate for the wine world. Consumers are incredibly skeptical of retailers, for much the same reason Charlie mentioned he walked out of a clothing store–they distrust the sellers opinion based on a perceived conflict of their financial obligation. Wine reviewers, and their scores, are supposedly an objective third party source. Why do people trust Consumer Reports when buying a car? The opinion of people like Charlie and Steve is paramount.
On other note, if I walked into a retailer and the retailer was doing a wonderful job of explaining the wines through verbiage, but I was on a limited budget and couldn’t decide between two wines, my next question (as I assume for most people) would be, “what does the retailer like best?” If the retailer replies, “I think they’re both great, but I like this one a little more,” isn’t that equivalent to rating the wines? The 100pt system is just the ultimate form of this–or in Steve’s hopes maybe the penultimate form.
Also, we need to discuss the flow of information and time requirement to fully understand a subject matter. Wine is an esoteric subject and requires years of hard work and dedication through research, whether it be reading, drinking or discussing. The people who are usually motivated enough to undertake this monumental task are not typically satisfied with the resulting low pay of retail, or even restaurant, work. To use a cliche, the cream always rises to the top, and in the wine trade that usually means distribution, supply, production, or critiquing. Now, I know there are some dedicated retailers, but in general they are the exception, not the rule. In my limited experience, those with the most knowledge are the most removed from consumers.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Steve-
Another problem with the 100 point scale? I did not see that one coming.
As a wine retailer for (only) 3 1/2 years now, I must admit that my shelves are littered with 83-88 point wine. To me these are some of the absolute best deals in the wine world. The majority of the wine tasting world cannot distinguish between a 92 and a 96 point wine, yet they are often very eager to pay extra for those four points.
I am often reminded of the time a young couple came into the wine room, with the Advocate and the Spectator in hand (I remember the exact issue, it was the issue that Casanova di Neri was hailed as Wine of the Year), and preceded to look up the score for any wine they were interested in. If they couldn’t find a score in those two publications, they moved on to the next bottle. I tried to intervene and offer some advice but they were set on finding the highest rated wine. (I was, however, able to get out of them that they were looking for a bottle to take to dinner with her father that night) They ended up taking a fresh bottle of Brunello, the freshest we had, and only a few dollars less than the Casanova.
That night these two opened an expensive bottle of young wine that was more likely to assault their tongues than compliment their meal. This is why I believe that without proper education on how to use these 100 point scales they will continue to be relatively useless to the consumer while simultaneously controlling the direction of the wine industry.
As for my own wine shop, I will continue to buy wines on their own merit and not according to what certain individuals deem worthy of an “A”. And to all your winemakers out there stuck in the mediocrity of the mid-80’s: Please! Keep fighting the good fight! Let your wines be judged on the fact that the average consumer continues to come back and pick up your bottles expecting to get exactly what they pay for and not be judged by the single individual that in one moment puts a characterless number beside your name.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Leanu, I wish you well. Your message is very important and I hope it will be read and understood.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Charlie,
A final word- The correlation I was attempting to make a correlation between high scores and the SUV driving public. We’ve already agreed that high scores usually accompany very high octane (if you will) big bodied, flabby wines (in a few short years in bottle). These high scoring wines ARE for people who don’t want to think (see Leanu’s piece above) or be conscious of what’s going on around them, i.e most environmentally conscious people DON’T drive huge over bearing SUV’s. They care and think about their purchases. They’re conscious of their purchases. Big wines like big cars appeal to the hedonistic animal in us perhaps. However, this model is unsustainable, similar to the point system.
Harse? Nah. Charlie, as an older cat in this industry, I’m not willing nor do I desire to disrespect your opinion. I state my opinion as a grower, maker and marketer. I do not seek out sales from corporate, for-profit reviewers, not do I sell my wines to wine shops, distributors who dictate the need for scores. Not for anything, Charlie you’ll be hard pressed to find any one person who works harder and longer hours than a youngish Kid who grows it, makes it AND markets it 100% from his small 12′X16′ tasting room. By your comment, I do take exception. I doubt you have bank loans against your role in this business like I do. Do you “lay it on the line” like we do daily? I believe that we without scores or shop placement work HARDER than our number chasing counterparts. It’s easy to hit scores and sell wine. Believe me, I hit a few huge scores in the beginning of my career, until I “saw the light”-er side of wine and how pretty they can be with lower sugars, higher acids arriving at the crushpad. Try and make wines that don’t garner the big points and sell them like we used to do… Hand sell bottle-by-bottle and establish personal relationships with clients. I promise that hand sold wines capture more customer loyalty than numbers or one’s ability to get on a “list”.
Like many in this wine world, we’re frustrated in a system that awards neglect of the fruit and ultimately rewards engineers, not winemakers.
I wish you all could see the condition of the fruit arriving at “cult” wineries crushpads. I have on more than 5 occasions. It’s unbelievable, the absolute decimated condition the clusters were in.
October 16th, 2009 at 1:44 am
[...] How can we get distributors and other wine buyers to get beyond their 90-point obsession? (steveheimoff.com) [...]
October 16th, 2009 at 8:54 am
I think a lot of people miss the point here, and that is that a score is just one persons opinion on a bottle of wine on a certain day. As we all know, especially in those of us in the trade, different bottles look differently on different days notwithstanding all of the other factors that may be in play, which are too numerous to outline. There are plenty of wines that may get a 90+ from one reviewer and a high 70s or low 80s scores from another. I can think of numerous examples and all from the major wine reviewers. Who is right? Really no one, Its just opinions and they all have wines that they prefer. I think we are all guilty of letting scores interfere with what we actually like.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Quote “I don’t think critics are “afraid” of lighter-bodied wines. I think the 100 point system has developed its own vernacular, as it were…100 points means very ripe, full-bodied and (probably) oaky in a table wine. As long as consumers understand that, there shouldn’t be a problem. Steve” end quote.
Ok- so how does one get 50 million wine drinkers to understand that? The distributors? The Wineries? – hmmm- seems to me that the point puffery comes from critics and blogers anyway, so it should be their responsibility to make sure that distributors are reading articles like this so they get what real customers are wanting or are lacking in knowledge. imho.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Good points, David, but how do I “make sure” distributors read my articles?