High Scores and the Taste of Money

Reader Jonathan Rodwell’s comments on my recent ‘Thoughts on Scores’ posting merit further discussion.

“Your preface on scores and price quality relationships needs to be more widely discussed” he writes. “The differences between ‘experts’ scores for the same wines, high scores skewed by price / image etc. - lack of objective ranking etc. - all contribute to a house of cards which needs to come down. Sadly there has long been an aversion to make comparative judgement about price and quality. This of course can be starkly apparent in tastings where price and provenance are not disclosed. It often seems that a price position pre-ordains a high point score (not to mention other conditioning factors with nothing to do with wine quality). As a winemaker in the Napa Valley in the 80's it became a very simple process to construct high scoring wines - and indeed Parker points as pointers aligned whole categories of wines. Funny how different the expression of terroir might have been appreciated if flavouring wines with oak was taken out of the equation!”

Lots of food for thought here, but let’s focus on the relationship between wine prices and scores. As I pointed out in my last post there does seem to be a strong correlation between the two; this is easy to note by looking at a reasonable sampling of reviews from those who write about and score wines professionally. Check any issue of Wine Spectator or Wine Enthusiast and you’ll get my drift.

In some ways this is not surprising. Wines carrying high prices are almost always more expensive to produce. And once a winery goes to the extra bother and expense to make what they consider to be a high quality wine, it’s easy to assume that much of the time that will be a better wine than their less expensive bottles, and probably merit a good score. But should the most expensive wine always get the highest score?

Absolutely not. I frequently rate a less expensive wine higher than the most expensive wine from the same portfolio. That said, I do not upgrade or downgrade any wine based solely on its price. I will point out wines that I feel are exceptional values. If you put faith in the numbers, it’s clear that a 92 point Pinot Noir costing $30 is a much better value than a 92 point Pinot Noir costing $130 or $230. But if they offer comparable quality they all get the same 92 points from me.

Yeah but... I hear you say. How do you know they are comparable if they are not tasted together? There is the heart of the matter. It’s all subjective. My 92 point wine may not be your 92 point wine. But having reviewed and scored literally many tens of thousands of wines over the past decades, I have a pretty clear sense (for my palate) of what a 92 point wine is. My scores almost always fall right in the dead center of a range of scores from multiple reviewers for any specific wine. Looking at the conclusions of any reviewer or tasting panel or wine judging you either believe that their scores are somehow ‘objective’ (here’s where the blind tasting argument is centered); or you accept that all reviewers and reviews are subjective (which is my strong belief). If that is your feeling, then you should either ignore reviews altogether or find a reviewer whose palate you trust.

One way to do this is to cultivate a relationship with a knowledgeable wine shop owner, someone whose business offers a curated selection of wines that reflect the owner’s palate. If that person consistently points you to wines that you find you like, or better still leads your palate into interesting new directions, that is someone worth listening to. I recognize that finding such a person may not always be possible. Which is where many consumers take the easy path and fall back on trusting scores, medals and other rankings – the stuff that proliferates in tasting rooms and online.

The decade of the 1980s that Jonathan references, when Robert Parker’s reviews and scores could make or break a winery, has passed. There is no single writer or publication today with a reputation comparable to the Parker of the 1980s and 1990s. As for the impact of new oak aging on impressions of terroir, there should be no impact at all. The concept of terroir encompasses the imprint on the wine of the total ecosystem in which wine grapes are grown. If anything, too much new oak obliterates terroir, just as too much salt can destroy a fine meal.

I agree that in the interest of transparency reviewers should explain how price may or may not impact their scores and notes. I can’t think of anyone who does this (correct me if I’m wrong). While writing and reviewing for Wine Enthusiast my understanding was that reviewers were not to comment negatively on price. Instead, the system of identifying ‘Best Buys’ (a nod given to inexpensive wines achieving certain scores at certain price points) was put in place. But that only applied to wines costing less than $15 at full retail.

My own effort to shed light on my reviewing methodology was (and still is) posted on my website:  “I taste in controlled settings, using specifically chosen stemware for each type of wine. When tasting I give each wine as much time and attention as it needs to show its best. Young wines often show best after being open for many hours. Revisiting them on the second (and sometimes third) day offers further insights, reveals hidden flaws, and suggests future ageability. I never taste quickly or rush through too many wines to meet some deadline. I do not do massive tastings or judge in wine competitions. I taste in small peer groups and give every wine more than a few good long looks before reaching a final assessment.

Desired Characteristics

“I specifically value wines that best demonstrate typicity, specificity, clarity, elegance, polish, depth and balance. If the wine is from a single variety it should reflect the generally-accepted standards for that variety; if it varies off that track it had better be really good! If it is from a specific focused sub-AVA (McMinnville rather than Willamette Valley; the Rocks District rather than Walla Walla Valley), it should express the unique character of that sub-AVA’s terroir. If a wine is designated by vineyard, clone or block it should feel complete and not just like a component with parts missing. If it is labeled old vine or winemaker’s select or reserve, it should justify that verbiage even though such terms are unregulated.”

Note that nowhere do I mention price as an influence. I strive to maintain a price neutral approach to my reviews and scores. Wineries are businesses, and therefore subject to market forces, so it is properly the decision of the business owner(s) as to how to price their wines. I will occasionally point out a wine that I feel offers very good value; I will not point out wines that I feel are over-priced. That is where the scores are a great leveler of the field. Choosing among those afore-mentioned 92 point Pinots, which one would you purchase?