Dunnuck is only rating service I subscribe to. Primarily because I’ve found I like the Rhône varietals he likes.
In the Washington report he released which covers 2016 bottles and a few 2017 barrel samples he reviewed 685 wines. By a quick count 58 were 97 or higher for 8%. The vast majority of those are wineries that are loved on this site, Cayuse et al, Quilceda Creek, Reynvaan, etc.
106 (15.5%) wines were rated less than 90 with a couple in the 70’s.
I’m no real defender of the wine critics, because I thinks it all so subjective, but I have no problem with 3/4 of his ratings being between 90-96 points. Didn’t count but it appears a large chunk are 90-91.
If you look at this scale on his website it make sense how and why he rates what he does:
100 to 96 – As good as it gets. These wines reach the peak of my personal scale of quality.
95 to 90 – Outstanding wines. These wines are outstanding for their type and are worth the extra effort to seeking out.
89 to 85 – Very Good to Good. These offer real character and can be age worthy.
84 to 80 – Good to Barely Good. While still good, these wines lack character or fail to show a significant number of positive traits. Wines in this category can deliver pleasure, particularly with a meal or in a setting where the wine won’t be the center of attention.
79 to 50 – Quaffable to Undrinkable. Wines rated less than 80 points are not recommended. They will range from passable to flawed and undrinkable.
Based on that I’d say his rating follow a pretty good curve but not going to take the time to actually make that chart.
At the end of the day, the important thing is to find a reviewer’s palate that aligns with yours - pure and simple. The ‘challenge’ is to make sure that one does this ‘in real time’ so to speak - purchase some of the wines recommended, taste them young without said reviews in front of you, and compare to your own notes. Going a step further, try some of the wines ‘panned’ by said reviewer and see how they align with yours - and, most importantly, with an open mind . . .
No matter how much we state that ‘reviews don’t affect us’, the reality is that they do - based on expectations, etc. With human nature, it’s nearly impossible to separate the bottle from what you expect the bottle to bring. Of course, some will say that ‘blind tasting’ is the best way to do this - and I won’t disagree entirely. But having as open mind as possible going in to tasting a wine is a pretty good thing as well . . .
Like the OP, my palate is fairly aligned with Jeb’s. I do however agree with the “point creep” issue among nearly all critics. I would say point creep is partly unwarranted and partly due to better wine making.
Not sure about point creep, but there is definitely pressure to only review the best and offer up high scores to get viewership. If you aren’t reviewing unicorns I’d assume the value decreases and the unicorn hunt drives people to be first.
Still remember the WTF moment when Parker debuted a 98 point score for 2003 Scarecrow…chase was on. That us what every reviewer is hoping happens and their name is attached.
John Glas wrote: ↑
Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:18 pm
2016 Andrew Will Sorella (99).
That seems high. I love Andrew Will wines and they need time. Hard to believe a pop and pour is a 99 point wine.
I’ll serve you one blind when you come in June. See how many points you give it when it is served blind.
Agreed. They are actually harder to find, most high scoring wines are priced that way, so you dont have to sift thru under $30 bottlings. At Taste WA found a couple nice values I hadn’t had, and don’t represent, Kevin White Blue Label and Syncline Estate Gamay Noir.
I’ll usually mix it up and not tell him the three wines I am pouring. You are right it has to be completely blind in order for the tasting to be objective.
I tried the 2015 Wines of Substance Vineyard Collection Klein BX Blend, which Jeb awarded 98. Very little weight, nose of asphalt, rather unpleasant. Medicinal quality, thin. Pretty much plonk. I don’t think the bottle was corked. Heat damage is always a possibility. Bottle variation. Very disappointing.
“Lastly, the 2015 Klein BX Vineyard Collection checks in as a blend of 45% Cabernet Sauvignon, 28% Merlot, and the balance Cabernet Franc, brought up in a mix of new and used barrels. Deep purple-colored, with a thrilling bouquet of crème de cassis, toasted spice, graphite, and dried tobacco, this beauty hits the palate with medium to full-bodied richness, building yet sweet tannins, flawless balance, and a finish that goes on for over a minute. This is a tour de force in Bordeaux blends from Washington State that I wish every reader could taste. It’s already accessible, with a sexy, flamboyant personality, yet it’s going to keep for two decades given its balance and purity.”
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
