Wine Spectator 2021 Top 10

[David_Baum]

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.

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.

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.

They were not 9 years late on MacDonald. They were writing about them a few years ago and the wine was first submitted for scoring with the 2016 vintage. Prior to that it was a much smaller fledging label producing 200 - 300 cases a year. They were also mentioned in a 2014 article about Kongsgaard where they made their wine. While they were not as early as us 1%ers here they were early from a media perspective

They taste and score thousands of wines and produce reports every week that many of us follow and have for years. If you pay attention its not hard to guess Top 10 wines from those reports either

[Anton_D]

Wow, half of all wine they review is outstanding, 90 points, or above.

The 100 point scale seems more and more like an 11 point scale.

[David_Baum]

Wow, half of all wine they review is outstanding, 90 points, or above.

The 100 point scale seems more and more like an 11 point scale.

By definition they only review the better made wines.

I dont know why so many get their panties in a twist over WS. Its a media outlet that does a very good job promoting the wine world which is enormous and varied. Either your palet aligns with their tasters or not.

[R_M_Kriete]

Updated:
10. Chateau de Nalys CdP 2018. 95 pts; $105; 1000 cases imported

9. Salvestrin Cabernet Sauvignon St. Helena Dr. Crane Vineyard 2018. 95 pts; $80; 1260 cases produced

10. Cavallotto Barolo Bricco Boschis 2016. 95 pts; $90; 3100 cases made

11. Château Léoville Poyferré St.-Julien 2018; 97 pts; $104; 15,000 cases made

12. Louis Latour Corton-Charlemagne 2018; 95 pts; $200; 2,702 cases made

13. Le Chiuse Brunello di Montalcino 2016; 98 pts; $99; 15,000 cases made

[Ian_Dorin]

Wow, half of all wine they review is outstanding, 90 points, or above.

The 100 point scale seems more and more like an 11 point scale.

By definition they only review the better made wines.

I dont know why so many get their panties in a twist over WS. Its a media outlet that does a very good job promoting the wine world which is enormous and varied. Either your palet aligns with their tasters or not.

Because they COULD BE so much more, that’s why.

They could be catering to this audience, and casual wine people too. They focus on the latter.

[Ian_Dorin]

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.

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.

They were not 9 years late on MacDonald. They were writing about them a few years ago and the wine was first submitted for scoring with the 2016 vintage. Prior to that it was a much smaller fledging label producing 200 - 300 cases a year. They were also mentioned in a 2014 article about Kongsgaard where they made their wine. While they were not as early as us 1%ers here they were early from a media perspective

They taste and score thousands of wines and produce reports every week that many of us follow and have for years. If you pay attention its not hard to guess Top 10 wines from those reports either

They went all out this year about MacDonald, so anything they did prior was largely overlooked until now. I didn’t know they did it.

You made my point for me. It’s not about figuring out the Top 10 (I was giving credit for the Top 100). They should be introducing people to new and exciting wines, and they rate the same old stuff all the time.

[David_Baum]

Wow, half of all wine they review is outstanding, 90 points, or above.

The 100 point scale seems more and more like an 11 point scale.

By definition they only review the better made wines.

I dont know why so many get their panties in a twist over WS. Its a media outlet that does a very good job promoting the wine world which is enormous and varied. Either your palet aligns with their tasters or not.

Because they COULD BE so much more, that’s why.

They could be catering to this audience, and casual wine people too. They focus on the latter.

So they are a business that needs to be profitable and serve a large audience not a very small one. No big deal. There is something so much more that can be run far more inexpensively without employing a large full time staff for that niche audience. You may have heard of it. Its called Wine Beserkers

[David_Baum]

Oh and when they do cater to this audience and write about small, unknown, impossible to find wines they hear nothing but complaints that the wines are…hard to find and not available to purchase

[Brady_Daniels]

Wine Spectator provides a fine venue to start getting into wine. It helped me get hooked in the mid-90’s.

I then transitioned to TWA, which I believed was more credible, due to the lack of ads. I abandoned them after the 2007 Rhône enthusiasm, realizing that my tastes were diverging from their recommendations.

I then graduated to tasting widely, often prompted by wine boards, and trusting my own palate.

We all walk our own roads, but I suspect many wine lovers’ journey started with a delicious bottle, followed by devouring several issues of Wine Spectator. I can think of worse ways to start a new hobby.

[Ian_Dorin]

By definition they only review the better made wines.

I dont know why so many get their panties in a twist over WS. Its a media outlet that does a very good job promoting the wine world which is enormous and varied. Either your palet aligns with their tasters or not.

Because they COULD BE so much more, that’s why.

They could be catering to this audience, and casual wine people too. They focus on the latter.

So they are a business that needs to be profitable and serve a large audience not a very small one. No big deal. There is something so much more that can be run far more inexpensively without employing a large full time staff for that niche audience. You may have heard of it. Its called Wine Beserkers

Touche

[Ian_Dorin]

Oh and when they do cater to this audience and write about small, unknown, impossible to find wines they hear nothing but complaints that the wines are…hard to find and not available to purchase

Haters gonna hate. They do that with RP and Vinous too. Never gonna please everyone.

[Charlie_Carnes]

Haters be hatin’ and complainers be complainin’… Without a doubt, love it or hate it, WS top 10 is fair game here!

[R_M_Kriete]

Haters be hatin’ and complainers be complainin’… Without a doubt, love it or hate it, WS top 10 is fair game here!

It’s interesting that no one is really complaining about their choices so far, just WS (as usual).

[Keith_A_k_e_r_s]

Haters be hatin’ and complainers be complainin’… Without a doubt, love it or hate it, WS top 10 is fair game here!

It’s interesting that no one is really complaining about their choices so far, just WS (as usual).

To quote the poet Byrne, David:

Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was

[John_Glas]

Never mind their list. At least they don’t have all 100 point scores and are $400 plus a bottle. What never makes sense with their list is usually 11-100.

[Alexander_Smith]

So Louis Latour C-C is an ‘interesting choice’, looking at WK 2018s out of the 26 wines tasted the Louis Latour was rated last…

[K_John_Joseph]

Wine Spectator provides a fine venue to start getting into wine. It helped me get hooked in the mid-90’s.

I then transitioned to TWA, which I believed was more credible, due to the lack of ads. I abandoned them after the 2007 Rhône enthusiasm, realizing that my tastes were diverging from their recommendations.

I then graduated to tasting widely, often prompted by wine boards, and trusting my own palate.

We all walk our own roads, but I suspect many wine lovers’ journey started with a delicious bottle, followed by devouring several issues of Wine Spectator. I can think of worse ways to start a new hobby.

No doubt. The other thing I always find amusing about the WS bashing is that most of the tasters are fairly well respected. But somehow also have their reputations tarnished by association with this presumption of biased reporting? Laube, Molesworth, Sanderson, and others have been fairly solid over time. Like anyone, they’re fallible and hit and miss. I think Wine Spectator is a lovely magazine that often has very nice write ups and stories. I subscribed for years and learned a ton. And then I moved on. I’ll still read an article here or there, as they remain informative. It’s a nice publication, even if there is some truth to “life style mag” instead of “cutting edge of winedom” for which they’d have a diminished audience.

[David_Baum]

Interesting that Chiuse was source vineyard at one time for Biondi-Santi Riserva

[Ian_Dorin]

Interesting that Chiuse was source vineyard at one time for Biondi-Santi Riserva

Issue is that another publication (WA) gave this 100 points, and has been sold out at release prices since May/June.

Has always been a great wine, but not sure what changes they made recently, but they really took off in the last few years. The wine is the real deal.

[Max_S1]

Interesting that Chiuse was source vineyard at one time for Biondi-Santi Riserva

Issue is that another publication (WA) gave this 100 points, and has been sold out at release prices since May/June.

Has always been a great wine, but not sure what changes they made recently, but they really took off in the last few years. The wine is the real deal.

IIRC it was actually given 98 and the Gianni Brunelli from the same Vineyard received 100. The weird thing is I’ve been able to find the Gianni, but not the Chiuse (unless you’re in Bellevue WA, where TotalWine has it for $90).