Wait, I thought critics were supposed to score on “quality” which is supposedly objective, not “style preference” which is subjective. That has been thrown at me hundreds of times here over my preference for old school wines…
First of all, I respect and appreciate Antonio’s willingness to interact on this topic and his openness.
Of the wines in my cellar which were in both last year’s report and this year’s report (primarily '09s), this year’s scores were all higher and the drinking range were all extended.
Since this is a significantly small percent of the wines reviewed, it may be a coincidence but it was notable enough to me that it looked like a trend.
Just for the sake of comparison and to understand scale, in approximate terms:
of acres in Napa County planted with Cabernet Sauvignon = 18,800
of acres in Piedmont planted with Nebbiolo specifically in the Barolo sub-zone = 4,450
Now, some of the Napa Cab will end up in proprietary blends and some of Piedmont Nebbiolo will be declassified to Langhe Nebbiolo instead of Barolo, but the numbers give some idea of the relative sizes of both areas
Nick- I am not looking for CA Pinot to be like Burgundy, or Burgundy to be like CA Pinot. I think the bigger question is why is that intersection you mention is low. Maybe people need to experiment outside their comfort zones a little more? A Burg drinker might not like Aubert, but might instead like producers such as Littorai, Hirsch, Sandhi etc. The world of wine is so vast, it is a shame so many people don’t explore the full breadth of what is out there…That is one of many things I would like to change…
Hi Antonio
Thanks for your very thoughtful answers. To me, actually, it does see to be too many…that 10% would be 96 or above. In my field, we use the bell shaped curve with which to think about IQ scores, for instance, with (as I’m sure you know) 100 being average, or at the 50th percentile. The 90th percentile (corresponding to your top 10%) would be around an IQ score of 119, which–in the scheme of things–isn’t THAT high (its in the uppermost end of the High Average range). The top IQ score is “155 and above” which is a long way from 119. So 10% of the population would get an IQ score of 119 or above.
To me, the distance between 96 and 100 isn’t that great, not nearly as great as, say, the distance between an IQ of 119 to “155 and above.” So, at least using a comparison to something with which I am familiar (the IQ distribution), rating 1 of 10 wines with a 96 or above does seem too high.
Just my $.02. I know wine criticism isn’t the same as psychology, but using the normal distribution as a similar point of reference, in my field this many ratings of 96 or above would be considered too high.
Thanks for the opportunity to engage in some fun and interesting thought.
Bingo. Many of the posts that directly antagonize Galloni’s scores for California cabs make direct comparisons to not only different regions, but entirely different varieties. That’s pure subjectivism, which we like to disparage in other conversations about critics. Pure objectivism probably isn’t that realistic, though.
Isn’t any wine critic simply a measuring stick palate? If Galloni thinks the wines are 96s, and a consumer can repeatedly say, 96 point Napa = this, then what does it matter if he handed out 10 more 96s this year than last? Isn’t there always “score inflation” in top vintages? Did anyone actually read Galloni’s blurb on 2010, which absolutely raved about the phenolic ripeness and harmony of the vintage? It’s not a sheer numbers game when vintage isn’t a constant. I much prefer consistency in critic’s praise of style in intra-regional reviews. If 2010 is a monster score-wise because of its harmony, acid, and balance…great. Seems like that is consistent with AG’s preferences in other years where wines with lower ABV, more structure, and better balance received higher scores.
Wilfried-
That is insightful. Thanks for sharing. In this case, a few things to keep in mind:
-
I think 2010 is a superb vintage, so the number of highly rated wines should be higher than normal, if you could establish what normal is (!)
-
The total # of wines I tasted was around 1500, so the % above 96 is around 7%
-
Most of the reviews come from estates I chose to visit based on their historical track record or some other factor that appealed to me, ie I had never visited in person, so the sample is not random (as it presumably is in your example), and there is therefore an inherent selection bias
You can make the argument that the vast majority of wines in any region is crap.
Except that you don’t have to. It’s not an argument. It’s a straight-up fact. Most people on these boards don’t drink those wines, many of which are just plonk, but sometimes they’re so bad they actually seem toxic. You gotta wonder what people were thinking when they bottled the stuff.
As Antonio and others pointed out, in CA they’re still learning. And while it’s true that they don’t have the same soils as they do in Piedmont, that’s not to say there are no great soils in CA. That would be a silly assertion. Rocks don’t care what side of the ocean they’re on.
I don’t think Bill said there were no visionaries - it’s only because of visionaries that the US wine industry even exists today. But there does seem to be a phenomenon of relatively new producers coming out with “perfect” or nearly perfect wines, and the wines are usually of a type. SQN, one of the few non-Cabs, comes to mind - big, ripe, oaky. And from no particular terroir, at least until recently. What would be the equivalent in Italy?
In any event, while I’m not sure I buy the argument that more experience caused a palate recalibration, kudos is due Antonio for showing up and engaging directly. And with Wild Bill no less! How about that!
Happy New Year to all you guys.
And Roberto - stop with the advertising already! 
FIrst, thank you Antonio, for your thoughtful, detailed and interesting comments. It’s a pleasure to read something by a real expert who is not pushing some agenda.
It would be very interesting, especially to people like me, to have some guidance along these lines. A chart, or some kind of template that puts this together–so if I like Burgundy, I can refer to it to find that I will probably like Littorai, etc., but not like Aubert, and if I like Aubert I would probably like X, but not Y. I guess what I’m looking for is a list of wine types and styles that is international, and that would allow us to classify any given wine, or at least most of them, according to some grouping of taste preferences. Do you think this could be done, even partially?
Hope I’m making myself clear!
Back at ya, KJohn. Your assertions about CA wines are equally subjective, and my comments were addressed to Antonio, not to you. I have followed his work from day one, and have a basis for asking him that question, which, it appears, he did not answer…
Quality to me is akin to diversity and uniqueness - terroir, vineyard work and winemaking winning over natural conditions to create something very unique, often due to tiny terroirs. The reasons that Antonio seemingly uses to increase the scores are the same I would use to reduce them, the more great wine made the tougher the scoring should be to reflect the commonness of the wine.
" I guess what I’m looking for is a list of wine types and styles that is international, and that would allow us to classify any given wine, or at least most of them, according to some grouping of taste preferences. Do you think this could be done, even partially?"
I shudder at the very thought of that! Let 1,000 cuvées bloom…
Right, Bill, and that’s the whole point. You can argue that California is inferior, and yet you face great opposition to that point. It is not an absolute, it is simply a matter of preference. I’m also aware that your comments were directed at Antonio. I’m simply baffled that you can state something like “I can’t think of any Napa cab that YOU COULD prefer to wines from blah blah blah” as if you’re the arbiter of Galloni’s tastes in Napa cabs, based on you having “followed his work from day one.” It’s simply bologna.
Moreover, given your disdain for all things notes and scores, why are you even following wine critics associated with The Wine Advocate? Do you not have better things to do than incite your own rage? I am interested in your response to AG’s comments about the Piedmont Report. Based on your past praise of the piedmont report, and complete thrashing of Galloni’s current reviews in California, I’d say your subjectivism is at least consistent.
Wilfred,
As I said above, I think Antonio and many other wine writers use a much less steep bell curve than I would. I would probably give 95+ scores to far less than 7% of even the better wines of California or any other region and think a scale like you are describing is more appropriate.
But, there is nothing requiring this type of steep bell shaped curve in rating wines. Even though I think 100 point wines should be limited to the legends and not just the top 1% or 1/2% of wines, there is nothing illegitimate in Antonio taking a different view, as long as he disclosed what he is doing. Again, I commend him for coming here and disclosing what he is doing. He is giving 95 points + to 7% of the top wines of the top producers that he visits in what he considers a top vintage.
Sure, but even a good start would be very helpful. What I mean is some type of classification that applies across many different wines–maybe “Burglike” would be one kind.
Howard, if a Moscato di Asti or Rioja Rosado is the PERFECT example of that type and you literally can’t imagine an improvement, does it get 100 points or must it be measured against the (assumed? postulated? supposed? imagined?) greater quality of a famous Bordeaux or legendary Cali Cab?
How hard would it have been to list the “500 other wines that did not make the cut”. Presumably they are still being sold on the market and it would be nice to know which ones did not “make the cut” and why.
There have been endless debates about the inherent flaws or shortcomings of the 100 point scale. Coupled with the fact that wine is a moving target, the same bottle can showcase quite differently under diverse circumstances.
Interesting to see all these Berserkers now clinging to the points as if their life depended upon them. Wine gets upgraded from 96 points to 99 points and WOW it starts to taste so much better!!
One one hand Berserkers think they have such a refined and experienced palate that they do not have to rely on Critics any longer for advice. On the other hand when a critic published something that does not marry with their own ideas or conceptions they are up in arms. Why can’t people just ignore and move on.
b
We get that you are a Cali man. If you were reading what I wrote instead of drafting canned responses to it, you would have seen that I stated that an apparent majority here, on Squires and on the WS board are dominantly or exclusively California wine drinkers. The fact that they oppose those who favor Old World wines, and do so with zeal, does not make the case for CA wines. You are right that it is a question of preference, but the playing field is not level. Many Cali Cab fans have been priced out of Bordeaux by Parker himself, and have not followed the path of so many before them who graduated from New World wines to Old World wines. The weak dollar also keeps many from learning about many of the best European wines. And the wildly high scores of Parker and Galloni convince many that CA wines are, in fact, superior. I am happy to concede that CA winemaking has experienced improvements, but anyone who has tasted through a goodly number of great old Cali Cabs is quite likely to tell you that the older wines are superior.
Many in that CA group scream with delight when Parker claims that Aubert Chardonnays are better than Montrachet, especially since most have likely never tasted wildly expensive Montrachet. The only problem with that is Parker has a blind spot for, and a deep, bitter subjective bias against, Burgundy, not to mention a severely crippled palate at this point. I get the dynamic, and I get why so many people live and die by CA wine scores. None of that will allow Aubert to make anything approaching Montrachet, or even easily drinkable Cali Chardonnay. If you can, go over to Squires and read Parker’s barely rational, Ayn Rand-inspired information superhighway road rage rant on score inflation. The man is a rabid dog, striking out at anyone who does not kowtow to him. This is the man whose influence has made a lot of Cali Cab what it is today. If you can read the rant and buy into it, then you and Parker deserve each other…
But Antonio, you ARE a Burg drinker, that’s the mystery here. Can you honestly tell me that you can sit down with a bottle of Aubert UV Pinot and a bottle of 2010 d’Angerville Volnay and enjoy them equally, and give them both classic scores in the high 90s? Even if so, no other experienced wine drinker I’ve heard of does, so it greatly decreases the usefulness of your notes and scores because there’s no way to calibrate to your palate.
Laube is honest about liking huge, fruity wines and not liking them with age. If you fed him a mouthful of Burgundy no doubt he’d reflexively spit it across the table. Meadows is honest about comparing Marcassin to melted vinyl. I think we can dispense with the pretense that there is an objective way to evaluate the quality of a wine aside from simply observing that it’s not poisonously flawed; there is little that a Marcassin Pinot and a Berthod Chambolle have in common otherwise, yet different sets of people consider them great.
Nick,
The hardest part of being ITB is taking your ego/prejudice out of tasting and look at a wine “merely” for it’s quality in a peer group. Just because you don’t stock your cellar with it or drink it at home doesn’t mean it isn’t well made and deserving of such recognition. We all have preferences, setting them aside and giving each a fair shake outside of that is a rare quality.