Totally in sync with the bolded part.
But that’s exactly why I think the list has value, rather than being silly. It’s a great way to get quick read on a reviewer’s palate, and see if you’re interested in following them.
If I was a professional wine reviewer and, in addition to keeping my reputation in high regard as a critic, I wanted to actually make some money and drive clicks and subscriptions…what WOULDN’T I have a Top 100 or something like it? It makes perfect sense to me, from a purely business standpoint.
I think one of the reviewers should post their Bottom 100 list. We could have a lot of fun with that.
no doubt
I generally do not like these lists (purely selfish reasons), but for critics and retailers - and for some buyers - they are great.
The 2016 Sansonnet is an unbelievable value-- rich, dark, complex, beautiful nose. I liked it better than the 2009 Pontet Canet (and I liked that wine plenty). I respect reviewers who are willing to rate highly a less expensive wine, when merited. Galloni also rated this wine highly.
I like the list, too. It’s fairly cohesive. Interesting that there seems to be zero intersection between his list and WS top 100. I assume he is using some combination of scores, value and availability to make his ranking. But several wines on the list are allocated and hard to come by.
I agree it is very cheap. In a designed bottle
My wife likes it.
But it does not possess any greenish flavors…
Based on where I’m seeing it in W-S, it appears the distributor is on the East Coast. I only see NY and DC as having any. Darn.
In my experience, Dunnuck has the best relationships with the “micro-importers” whom you’ve never heard of.
I strongly agreed with his opinion of the 2015 reds from the Southern Rhone, but the 2016 Southern Rhone reds were uniformly so powerful & unyielding that I couldn’t swallow them [not even after oxidizing them for a week].
Up in the Northern Rhone, 2016 is also proving to be quite a blowsy vintage, and I have no idea what to make of those wines [especially their potential for cellaring, which is a complete mystery to me].
#10 says everything you need to know about the list. At least he doesn’t recommend it with sushi.
[quoteNot that it really matters. It’s almost a random list. Some of the wines are pretty good IMO, some not so much. I guess everyone has a top 100 list out now. There should be a forum for everyone on WB to set up their top 100.][/quote]I just do a top 10. So much less work than a top 100. 
Think the only zin-based wine is the Geyserville. Seems like a massive miss
*says the guy who drinks more zin than probably any other varietal
Agreed but probably for the better.
Tom
Good point my friend!
John Gilman used to do articles on what he called roadkill. He evtually discontinued them. Probably included a number of wines on the top 100 lists of others.
what I never understand about these lists is this:
how does a wine that the same person who is making the list gave 96 points beat the wine right below it he gave 99 points to? and then somehow the first 100 point wine on the list isn’t till 38? seems like a pretty good argument that either the list or the point system is messed up if a 100 point wine doesn’t even make it into the top 30.
Matt - isn’t some of the criteria for ranking based on relative value? For example, the 99 point wine you reference may cost $300, while the 96 point wine costs $50, thus meriting a higher place on the list.
You would think that but then there are two 99 point wines at 4 & 5 for exempel, where the #4 costs 66% more than the #5. And this pantern repeats itself so I really struggle to understand the ranking.
i think my argument is less with the list itself, but more with the points. IMO, if i give a wine 100 points, it wouldnt matter how much value another wine has when im making my top of the year list. a wine i believe merits 100 points does so because it is perfect. how could another wine ever outrank a perfect wine, regardless of what kind of value it offers? seems ridiculous to even consider it.