Not even close. E Guigal’s revenue in 2019 was $65.6 million.
Constellation was $6.1 billion. Gallo was around $5 billion (est.). Concha y Toro - $770 million. Treasury Wine Estate (BV, Beringer, Sterling, Acacia, Penfolds, Lindemann’s, Rosemount)- $630 million. Kendall Jackson is est. $500 million.
Well, yes, but this is one of many reasons why I don’t take WS (with or without the list) seriously!
I would ordinarily agree. And I might even agree in this case since, if I’m right, their lack of a good list of ratings is at least partly on them.
Now, I’m not privy to any info at WS but I think Aleks Zecevic, who was doing their German Riesling ratings, left this year or was moved to cover South Africa (it’s unclear to me). He ended up tasting only 8 wines from just two producers (Tesch and Okonomierat Rebholz, not exactly ones one hears about here a lot). His last rating was published in February.
Then, starting in June and up to this month, Bruce Sanderson has added ratings on 170 German wines, but no Joh Jos Prum, no Keller, no Clemens Busch, no Falkenstein, no Richter, no Bürklin-Wolf, no Dr. Hermann, no Steinmetz, no Leitz, no Carl Loewen, no Loersch, etc., etc., etc. And only a couple of wines from AJ Adam or Willi Schaefer.
So, they’re pretty much limited to Selbach-Oster, Dr. Loosen, Maximin Grunhaus, Schloss Lieser, Donnhoff, Fritz Haag, H. Thanisch Zilliken, Nik Weis, Muller-Catoir, Meulenhof, Joh Jos Chr Erben, and a couple of others.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s a reason I have a Selbach-Oster on my short list for WOTY, but I don’t think they’re in a position to responsibly select a representative Riesling for their top 6.
Why do I think that could be on them anyway, even if Zecevic left? Because they’ve been consistently very late IMO to rate German wines, even accounting for the fact that they taste blind (so they can’t really taste before release).
This isn’t a revelation tbh. It’s not outwardly spoken, but I’ve heard more than a few stories over the years about advertising and higher scores in WS.
Look, it’s not about conspiracies or any other nefarious reasons why Rieslings won’t place in the top 5. Other than the few wine geeks out there who live and die with this admittedly overlooked wine there is just one plain fact that overrides them all.
Nobody cares about Rieslings.
I think you are attributing too much rationality to the ranking.
Like all these kinds of rankings, it’s in part to attract attention and stimulate discussion. And, in WS’s case, as others have noted, they have to take into account wide availability and – I’m sure – what their readers are likely to buy and drink. (One can speculate about commercial influences, as well, of course.)
Also - don’t they rate only what is sent in to them? As a result, this can’t possibly be the best wines of the world, considering all makers and regions. It’s going to have to be just the best of what was submitted.
WS currently has a strong and very public commitment to blind tasting for their ratings and has for 10+ years. Not sure it’s always been that way as you reference, perhaps that’s why they have been so public about their policy.
The Top 100 is an altogether different beast, though, right? And can dramatically alter sales numbers. The criteria for top 10 is not “best 10 wines of the year” or they’d just go to the 100 pointers and line them up. They take into account accessibility, production numbers, and some other factors which cannot be considered non-blind. If you know who is pouring money into the organization, and you’re picking between a Guigal and some small mom and pop, you can easily use accessibility and production and a big ass wink to bump them up a few spots on your top 100 list like, say, into the top-10. Lo and behold, no doubt Guigal is advertising in spectator next year.
I’m not saying it’s intentional or overt or anything so blatant as that, but the perception is there and has been for a good while.
It’s like Frosted Lucky Charms… Guigal buys it, and the $30 CdP I bought a few years back from Nalys is now magically delicious. 
Yes, I agree. That’s why I spoke about price and availability earlier.
From the 2020 article this is the criteria:
As always, Wine Spectator’s mission is to draw readers’ attention to the most exciting wines our editors discovered in their blind tastings. We reviewed more than 11,000 wines during the past year. Nearly 50% of those rated an outstanding 90 points or higher on our 100-point scale. From this pool, we selected our Top 100, evaluated for quality (based on score), value (price), availability (cases made or imported into the United States) and, importantly, the back story of the wine, what we call the X-factor.
Stop trying to get people to read. They are more interested in their opinion of how the Top 100/Top 10 is assembled.
#8 Cavallotto
Barolo Bricco Boschis 2016
#7 Château Léoville Poyferré
St.-Julien 2018
I could see them having a Chard in top 5–maybe one of the Ramey single vineyards? He had top 10 with Hyde Chard a couple years ago). Maybe they’ll have a Champagne as well (Bollinger Grand Anne was last year), but don’t recall them raving about certain champagnes from this year?
2018 Pinot option as well? Maybe something from Sonoma which had good 2018s.
It’s interesting to see the lift a winery or brand gets from being placed on the list, especially in top 10. Guess we’ll see what #6 and #5 are tomorrow…
Do you even get enjoyment from this site or is there self satisfaction in your snipey little comments?
I was just referencing WS’s wine ratings throughout the year. I do agree with you that putting the Top100 together is an entirely different beast and one in which “gentle nudges” can be rationalized with a number of criteria.
I like that the great majority of their ratings are conducted blind and the impartiality it conveys. I realize it might not always happen but appreciate what they’re striving for.
FWIW, I’ve always felt that WS using the blind tasting excuse was a total straw man argument. They have never back that up with “we only hire the best blind tasters in the world”. Let’s face it, blind tasting is hard, really hard. I’ve seen professionals fantastically swing and miss at lay up wines. People over think the hell out of blind tasting. 2003 Scarecrow got an 88 from the Wine Spectator. Think any one actually cares what Wine Spectator rated 2003 Scarecrow that is actively buying (or selling) it? They are what, 9 years late on MacDonald? They were once trailblazers, and a source for new and exciting wines. Now? A once a year flash in the pan list that people will chase between now and the end of the year, and forget about by the time the Bowl games kick off.
They clearly still have enough clout, but they should be looking outside of the Top 100.
I wouldn’t read too much into it. I am pretty sure they still break it down by vintage, region, etc. So they’ll have a “blind” line up of, say, 2019 Chateauneufs, or Grand Cru Chablis wines. And then they all score highly. They are not tasting Apothic next to Mouton Rothschild.
So we shouldn’t take wine reviews/rankings from a publication seriously because they accept advertising, but we should believe other media that has advertising as well? I am confused. SNAFU. ![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
Mehhhhhhhhhhhhh. Cavalotto is getting more and more difficult to buy, this doesn’t “help”.
Actually looks like a great list so far and quite diverse not US centric
CDP
Napa Cab
Barolo
Bordeaux
White Burgundy
Brunello