What makes a wine region classic? What does it say about 100-point wines?
If you were a wine critic, do you think you could give 100 points to a wine you tasted double-blind?
Let’s assume that your educated palate determined it was a very, very good wine. You might taste it and think, “Wow, this is really great,” and then consider giving it a perfect score. But then, not having the slightest idea what it was, you might hedge your bet and give it, say, 96 points. You could, of course, give it 100, but my hunch is that you’d second-guess yourself enough so that you wouldn’t. Psychology plays a bigger role in these decisions than you might think—or that critics want you to know!
On the other hand, say you weren’t tasting the wine blind. Say you knew it was 2009 Latour. You know Latour’s history and reputation, you know it’s one of the most ageworthy wines in the world, you know, in short, that this wine in front of you is absolutely classic, from a classic vintage. Now, is that enough information to make you more comfortable about giving it 100 points?
I should think so, and so, apparently, does Jim Laube, who wrote a very good column in the July 31, 2015 issue of Wine Spectator about what makes any particular winery “great” in the eyes of critics and wine historians. (Sorry, if you’re not a Wine Spectator subscriber, you can’t read the entire column.) Along these lines, he mentions La Tache specifically by name, and more generically, he mentions Bordeaux, Burgundy, the Rhone and Sauternes in France, and Napa Valley Cabernet Sauvignon, as possessing the “pedigree” needed to be a classic—that is, to be worthy of getting 100 points.
Now, if you’re in Paso Robles or the Sierra Foothills or someplace that doesn’t have the impressive history of these classic regions, you probably wonder how long it will take for your region to be considered classic, and thus worthy of consistently producing 100 point wines, at least in a great vintage. This is an excellent question, and of course Jim Laube is the perfect person to raise it, since he’s the dean of California wine critics and a very thoughtful man. He rightfully speculates that newer regions might someday enter this pantheon of the classics, as well he should: it would be intellectually disingenuous to say that the pantheon is closed, that no poseur can ever enter the top rank because it’s been shut for years.
What’s so fascinating about this topic is that it calls into question the validity of the 100-point system. If you posit that only certain regions are even capable of achieving 100 points, then you’re basically an ideologue; and we mere mortals, who read the reviews of these famous critics, have to wonder if they’re really tasting everything blind. Now, Jim Laube is honest enough to suggest that more information than merely the taste of the wine is needed in order to “identify the best wines.” “A wine requires some credentials in order to be measured among the elite.”
Let me repeat that. Jim said “A wine requires some credentials in order to be measured among the elite.” This means that double-blind tasting can never result in a super-high score because the taster is, by definition, ignorant of its credentials.
Would it trouble you to say that I agree with Jim? He has to tread a careful line here, because Wine Spectator claims, in their Buying Guide, that “Wines are always tasted blind.” But they do offer the caveat that this is not double-blind: they taste “in flights organized by varietal, appellation or region…and the vintage.”
That’s quite a lot of important information. If you know that you’re tasting white Burgundy from a great vintage, you have to allow for the possibility of a very high score. Can it score 100 points? Well, does the taster know if it’s Grand Cru or Premier Cru or some vlillage wine? The critic has to make this kind of judgment based not so much on the individual wine, IMHO, but on his track record, and on the acceptance of the market.
This conversation about point scores and perceptions is more necessary than ever. Am I refuting the 100-point system? No. But I am calling into question the circumstances under which it is utilized. I think there’s a place for it. But I also think that we need far more transparency about how these tastings are conducted, in order for them to be credible. I don’t mind an open tasting when critics let us know they were excited as hell, and so their enthusiasm might be biased. But I do mind it when critics put on the fig leaf of “blind tasting” when they actually know a lot more about the wines than they lead us to believe.
Have a great weekend!
James Laube states in the article you reference, “There are Pinot Noirs grown elsewhere that compare favorably with La Tâche . . .”
Any chance you might know which pinots these might be (since I’ll never be able to drink La Tâche), given your own experience?
Say it ain’t so Charlie. Say it ain’t so:
“Jim Laube is . . . the dean of California wine critics . . .”
Do we need to check Hawaiian birth certificates to verify who is older? Who has been reviewing California wines longer?
Steve,
My mentor wine writer Robert Lawrence Balzer continually quipped to his wine appreciation course students:
“Confession is good for the soul.”
I want for you to want for me (and others — like Linda Murphy) to know HOW wine critic reviewing is done — starting with your tenure at Wine Enthusiast:
“If you were a wine critic, do you think you could give 100 points to a wine you tasted double-blind?
“Let’s assume that your educated palate determined it was a very, very good wine. You might taste it and think, ‘Wow, this is really great,’ and then consider giving it a perfect score. But then, not having the slightest idea what it was, you might hedge your bet and give it, say, 96 points. You could, of course, give it 100, but my hunch is that you’d second-guess yourself enough so that you wouldn’t. Psychology plays a bigger role in these decisions than you might think — or that critics want you to know!”
Are you intimating that you hedged your bets/were “gun shy” on pulling the trigger on awarding high scores to wines you reviewed?
Did you taste “no blind” or single or double blind?
~~ Bob
Postscript. Quoting Robert Parker (circa 2002):
“. . . Readers often wonder what a 100-point score means, and the best answer is that it is pure emotion that makes me give a wine 100 instead of 96, 97, 98 or 99. ”
KJ: I don’t think Jim meant that there are wines that taste exactly like La Tache. He meant that there are Pinot Noirs that are as complex and wonderful as La Tache. Specifically, I have my favorites from California, but I don’t want to name them.
KC,
Here’s another voice, another opinion.
~~ Bob
Excerpts from Robert M. Parker, Jr.’s Wine Advocate (Issue 99, closing date 6-30-95) thought piece titled “American Pinot Noir Comes of Age”:
“Today, most of the finest Pinot Noirs, both in Burgundy and America, have been largely influenced by the great master, Henri Jayer. Although in semi-retirement, Jayer continues to be an inspiration for both Burgundy and New World Pinot Noir producers. . . . .
“In America, most of the finest Pinot Noirs are being made in Jayer’s style. I wish I could include the Domaine Leroy style. Madame Lalou Bize-Leroy’s burgundies are so profoundly rich and complex that she truly has no competition anywhere in the world, . . . .
“The bottom line is that American Pinot Noir has never been better. The top California and Oregon producers can compete with all but the two dozen or so of the Cote d’Or’s greatest red burgundies. . . . .”
REVIEW: Kalin Cellars 1990 Pinot Noir Cuvee DD (Sonoma) 94 points
”I have rarely tasted as complex and profound a Pinot Noir as Kalin’s 1990 Pinot Noir Cuvee DD from Sonoma. Anyone who is familiar with the Domaine de la Romanee-Conti’s magnificent 1980 La Tache might want to try a bottle of Kalin’s Cuvee DD for comparison.
“It possesses a huge fragrance of macerated prunes/plums, smoked meats, jammy raspberries and cherries, and loads of smoke and herb notes. The flavors are reminiscent of tea and smoked duck. The wine is full-bodied, with huge richness, great precision, and freshness, as well as a heady, spicy, lightly tannic finish. It should drink well for 10 – 15 years.
“Years ago I remember tasting Kalin’s 1979 Pinot Noir Cuvee DD, which was a dead-ringer for one of the great grand crus of the Domaine de la Romanee-Conti. Whatever the Leightons are doing with Pinot Noir, the 1990 is mind-boggling.”
Excerpt from Robert M. Parker, Jr.’s Wine Advocate (Issue 80, closing date 4-23-92)
REVIEW: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti 1980 La Tache (Burgundy) 96 points
“This wine offers further evidence of how spectacular many 1980 red burgundies have turned out. One of the great vintages for DRC, their 1980s even rival their spectacular 1978s and 1985s. The wine exhibits a dark garnet color, and a magnificent bouquet of herbs, smoked duck, black fruits, truffles, and minerals. In the mouth, it is expansive and super-rich, with all of its tannins having melted away. The result is a majestic drinking experience. Drink it over the next 4 – 5 years. “
I think you and Jim Laube show the 100 point system is mostly meaningless. It would be better if wines were just scored as 80+ or 90+, ranges rather than exact numbers. To say a Ch. Latour can be 100 points but a similar wine from elsewhere (name your location) can’t because it is not from Bordeaux is rediculous.
Critics should taste double blind so they are not influenced by the label, location or reputation. Some of the great Chateaus have had periods of mismanagement and inferior wines during their long history. Your reasoning would still give them higher scores than wines from elsewhere that were clearly better.
Peter,
Louis Martini observed that “[oenological] memory is the winetaster’s greatest asset.” (My mentor Robert Lawrence Balzer habitually invoked Martini’s observation in his wine appreciation courses.)
It would be unfair to a wine critic to insist s/he taste “double blind.”
That would mean having no foreknowledge of the country of origin/appellation or vintage — two elements that define Mother Nature’s contribution known as “terroir.”
The wine critic uses geography and vintage and grape variety to “frame” the assessment of the wine, and judge its “typicity.”
~~ Bob
Bob,
What is “typicity” but where a varietal was first tasted and judged. If current era Napa had been around longer than Bordeaux a “typical” Cabernet Sauvignon would be a big fruit forward, highly oaked, higher alcohol wine. Bordeaux would be considered atypical.
If you find a great Riesling from New York does it become a lesser wine because it is not typical of a German Riesling? It may be the best example of what is “typical” for the area it is grown in.
I think we should judge wines more on how they taste than where they are from.
Peter,
California Cabernets should be judged against other California Cabernets.
That is the internal reference standard. The “typicity” that comes from California’s planted red Bordeaux grape variety clones, its microbes [*], and its climate.
Comparing California Cabernets against red Bordeaux might be a fun intellectual exercise, even “good sport,” but it is still an “apples-to-oranges comparison.”
I don’t “ask” a California Cabernet to be a red Bordeaux. The same way within Bordeaux I don’t “ask” a St.-Julien to be a St.-Emilion. (If it did, then it would lack “typicity.”)
You can profess a preference for one over the other, but they should be judged as separate categories of wine.
(And we see that orientation at wine judging competitions, where submissions are judged by country of origin.)
~~ Bob
[*See:
From The New York Times
(November 25, 2013):
“Microbes May Add Special Something to Wines”
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/science/microbes-may-explain-some-of-the-mysteries-of-terroir-and-wine.html?_r=0&pagewanted=print
By Nicholas Wade]
On Perfection, Pedigree and Privilege
Perhaps Steve, a simple paragraph similar to what I offer below could help with the subjective nature of judging wine:
“Wine Critics select their world class wines based upon how close the wine comes to fitting the ideal wine as described in the Standard by Varietal and Region. Another important factor in the process is “judging on the day” as wines, like most performers or athletes, may “show” better on some days than others. This results in the wine critic subjective basis: one critic, applying his or her interpretation of the Standard, giving his or her opinion on which of the wine entries may be the best wine on that particular day. Different critics may have different interpretations of the standard, and may have particular points that they feel are more important than others.”
The paragraph above is pulled directly from the Westminster Kennel Club on judging a group of dog breeds for their annual show, with my substitutions to fit a wine critic.
I actually do believe that wines, like dogs, happen to “show” better on certain days. Dog judging is certainly not double-blind and a “Best of Show” is judged by a single individual much like Laube or Parker, or you Steve.
But notice, “Best of Show” is not a substitute for “Perfect Score”. I happen to like Best of Show for wines as well, because no wine or dog is perfect and never will be.
I’m not really a dog show fan, I’m more of a Star Trek geek. As a Star Trek fan, Captain Kirk defeated the NOMAD computer/device through his flawless logic. No wine in all of history should ever receive 100 points, because no wine ever made was perfect. 100 points assumes perfection on the 100 point scale, although the wine was made by an imperfect human and then judged by an imperfect human at a certain time, on a certain day, on a scale that assumes, illogically, perfection. That wine then changed, incrementally, with each passing second after it was tasted, slipping either closer to or further away from perfection, but never attaining it. The score itself is flawed the second after the exacting scoring process, as wine and the human evaluating it is constantly evolving or devolving, perfection and the score itself is fleeting and variable.
The idea or concept of “Pedigree” of region is more disturbing as a concept in wine than perfection. Pedigree might be an interesting thought when speaking of horses and dogs, but now wine? Perfection is at least a philosophical concept that we can have some debate over, but pedigree smacks of royalty, aristocracy and the privilege of waking up on third base thinking you hit a triple.
From your blog Steve, “But terroir – understood as the combination of physical factors such as climate and soil – is only a part of why wine tastes the way it does. The other part is the human factor – what the great French enologist, Emile Peynaud, calls Cru. When you add human activity to terroir, you end up with Cru. I would argue that the human factor in Napa Valley plays a more important role than it does in Alexander Valley “
I like this discussion of terroir and cru, not of pedigree, privilege and perfection.
David,
You comment . . .
“The score itself is flawed the second after the exacting scoring process, as wine and the human evaluating it is constantly evolving or devolving, perfection and the score itself is fleeting and variable.”
. . . invokes “the observer effect” in science (not to be confused with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle): the act of observing will influence the phenomenon being observed.
In wine, the act of sampling will influence its components (e.g., aroma, bouquet, total acidity, astringency, body weight, alcohol level, mouth-feel texture, and flavors) being experienced.
And since wine is assessed subjectively through the prism of one’s life experiences (the concept of “Cru” introduced by Professor Peynaud), no two people sampling the same bottle of wine share the same experience.
A numerical score of (say) 95 points from Parker is not the equivalent of a 95 point score from Laube or Steiman or Tanzer or Galloni or Olken or Heimoff.
Similarly, an 83 point score.
Steve commented in “Being kind to mediocre wine” [http://www.steveheimoff.com/index.php/2013/08/02/being-kind-to-mediocre-wine/]:
“… a score … (… under Wine Enthusiast’s rules) … [of] … 80 or 81 ([is] barely drinkable) … In general you can say that any wine I review that scores between 80-84 points is not one I would wish to drink; …”
Over at Wine Spectator, a score of 83 points falls into the range of 80 to 89 points, which it describes as “Good to very good, a wine with special qualities.”
Over at The Wine Advocate, a score of 83 points falls into the range of 80 to 89 points, “equivalent to a [letter grade] B in school . . .” And Parker has said: “I buy wines [for personal consumption], and I buy wines that are 85 or 86 [points], not below that.”
Seems to me that an 83 point score connotes a “good” or “above average” wine . . . which most consumers would “assume” is a sign of praise.
~~ Bob
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I implore wine critics to augment their scores/augment their rankings with this supplemental information:
“By the vote of my wallet/purse, I would buy this wine at its suggested retail or mailing list selling price.”
You can award a 1986 Mouton (with its fearsome tannins) “100 points” as an intellectual exercise Socratically debating its longevity.
More importantly, dear critics, I wish to know HOW MUCH you enjoyed the wine.
If wine drinking is a pursuit of hedonistic pleasure, express that satisfaction to me the reader.
(Aside to Steve: here’s a suggestion for a near-future wine blog topic.
With apologies to the TV commercial for Capitol One bank cards — “What’s in your wallet?” — tell us what’s in your wine cellar?
What you have spent your hard-earned money on is the best reflection of who your “affinities” as a wine critic. It’s your skin in the game.
Robert Parker loves above all else Rhone Valley reds.
Michael Broadbent and Hugh Johnson love red Bordeaux.
Clive Coates loves red Burgundies.
Allen Meadows self-evidently loves red Burgundies.
I “assume” James Laube loves California Cabernets and Cab-blends.
I “assume” Antonio Galloni loves Italian reds (referencing his “Piedmont Report” newsletter).
Matt Kramer seems a little more catholic in his “tastes.”
I dunno where Jancis Robinson and Stephen Tanzer and Harvey Steiman stand.)
ERRATUM.
“What you have spent your hard-earned money on is the best reflection of WHAT your ‘affinities’ ARE as a wine critic. It’s your skin in the game.”