Critic Wars: The Producer Strikes Back .... Comentario de / Comment of Wines Inform Assessors

Critic Wars: The Producer Strikes Back

Beneath the suavity and elegance of Bordeaux, passions run deep.  © UGC Bordeaux

| Beneath the suavity and elegance of Bordeaux, passions run deep.  
Ever wondered what wine producers really think of critics? Read one irate summation of the state of wine reviewing.
By Don Kavanagh | Posted Friday, 01-Jun-2018
You have to feel for wine producers sometimes.
They slave away, day and night, tending their vineyards in Burgundy and Bordeaux in order to produce the best grapes they can. They harvest these Cabernet or Pinot grapes, spend weeks meticulously and painstakingly turning them into precious wine, which they then leave ageing until it is ready to meet its public. And then some jumped-up wine critic comes along and tells them exactly how wrong they've got it. It must be heartbreaking.
Related stories:
Criticizing the Wine Critics
Parker and the Pope – the Infallibility Fallacy
Parker Please Don't Go
And it must be especially galling when a major occasion brings hordes of critics and "wine professionals" to town, all of them looking for the best in wine, food and accommodation, while simultaneously publicly slamming the best efforts of some of the very people offering their hospitality.
A fascinating insight into the anguish felt by many producers can now be revealed, after an extraordinary letter from a severely disgruntled member of the producer end of the market was made public this week on social media. In the letter, the author gives an amusing series of "tasting notes" on several high-profile wine critics, and awards them scores based on their perceived performance.
Some of the critics do well in the assessments, but there are some brutally direct comments about the integrity of others and many are accused of offering better scores to producers who are willing to do a little more for the critic in return.
Wine-Searcher has verified the authenticity of the letter, so it is not simply a concocted internet meme or fake social media sensation; it's an actual communication sent by a member of the French wine industry to a colleague. We are not identifying the author or the critics, as we don't want anyone to lose their job and we'd rather not be sued for defamation by outraged critics unable to take the heat when it is applied to them.
"Each year in spring, during en primeur, wines are tasted, analyzed and scored by critics. The notes and scores are often incoherent and senseless, to the point that one can ask if some of them really know how to taste wines. It's not enough to have a polished rhetoric and apply a score out of 20 or 100 points. This exercise requires other essential skills that many of them seem to be short of.
"This evaluation rests on an analysis of scores, comments and the tasting of wines from a decade of en primeur and en livrable [bottled wines] tastings. The criteria on which this ranking is based are the following: tasting aptitude in recognizing qualities and faults/defects, neutrality, integrity, independence, knowledge of wineries, interest in the vintage conditions and the technical choices of the vignerons, en primeur and en livrable tastings, aptitude to reconsider en primeur scores.
"The list of influencers is non-exhaustive, but has never ceased to grow in the past few years; press journalists and independents, bloggers, masters of wine (MW) – many legitimate or not, who claim membership of the 'influential' circle."
Critic A is described as possessing integrity, discretion and objectivity. "...is also of a great humility (a rare quality in this profession) and has already gone back on [the original score] during en livrable retastings, a quite rarely observed thing among critics." The author sums up: "Not infallible, but commendable. 93-95 points."
Critic B is referred to as "The Formula 1 of tasting", but there is an inference that some mutual back-scratching is to be expected. "You will have guessed, integrity is not a priority, but [B] is liked at Bordeaux ... therefore receives a score that allows [B] to come to future tastings! 90 points."
Critic C gets a completely favorable review, being acknowledged for a willingness to travel, to do research on the vintage conditions and also to reassess scores, however the final score (87-89) suggests a certain lack of sparkle.
Incompetence and incoherence seem to be common threads among some wine critics.© Wikimedia | Incompetence and incoherence seem to be common threads among some wine critics.
Critic D "travels mainly to friends’ and demonstrates opportunism", according to the author. Integrity, neutrality and the aptitude to reassess a score are not among [D's] qualities. Blind tasting does not mean tasting blind and giving a score or comment once the bottle is unveiled … well, one shouldn't displease a client… Without great interest, nothing to see here. 85-87 points."
Critic E "tastes a lot ...yet a training on wine faults is urgently required. Has no humility but has the courage of [E's] convictions, even risking to offend domains. Limited interest though. 85-87 points."
Critic F is described as a "hedonist, not a critic. It will be much appreciated to invite [F] for a lunch or to sleep over at the chateau to get good comments and better scores. A training on wine faults is here also required. 85-87 points."
Critic G "tastes a lot with certain skills but without any re-assessment ... tastes more often labels than wines. Neutrality and integrity are not a prime quality, humility neither. 83-85 points."
Critic H gets a rather mixed review: "...does not travel to properties often, seems honest, yet unpredictable, capable of the best and the worst. Can be biting in a totally arbitrary way. Remains very inconsistent, yet tends to follow the established order without really questioning it. Many aberration were noted on some crus and a training on wines qualities and faults is vividly advised. Do not follow [H's] recommendations. 81-83 points."
Critic I is where things start to really go downhill. "Surprising right from [I's] first en primeur tastings, big mistakes committed, never reassesses scores, only travels to friends. No integrity, also likes faulty wines. We advise basic wine training to gain credibility. To be forgotten; 80-82 points."
Critic J "travels a lot to properties, that's [J's] only quality. Tastes labels before wines and integrity, neutrality or even humility are very far from [J's] preoccupations. Can also give you advice on how to make a better wine. If you know a good table (because [J] is also a gastronome) while telling a good story on the wine, a podium finish is secured, but don't forget to buy some ads, too; cronyism is required. Again, nothing to see here. 75-77 points."
Critic K "only travels to friends' properties. Neutrality and integrity are not preoccupations, an American hedonist with a Californian palate and is a label drinker. Don't forget to welcome [K] at the table with very old vintages; good or bad it doesn't matter as long as the label is beautiful. A training on recognizing wine faults is imperative. For those who want to taste great wines with great harmony, finesses and elegance, [K's] recommendations are to be avoided. 68-70 points.
Critic L is dismissed in a couple of sentences. "Does not travel, incoherent and incompetent, of no interest; don't waste your time. Because a score has to be given: 61-62 points."
Critic M also gets it in the neck. "Does not travel, incoherent, proven incompetent, discredits the title of Master of Wine – if it still has any credibility in the eyes of wine professionals. Nothing to interest anyone. Because it's our duty to score this 'critic' – 61-62 points."
Critic N doesn't do much to restore the reputation of the profession, either. "Incoherent and famously incompetent, without any humility. Has buried the title of Master of Wine for good. Don't waste your time, nothing to see here. 61-62 points."
Critic O rounds out the main runners and riders. "Absolute necessity to get intensive training on wine tasting, one cannot improvise the role of critic. If you too want to criticize wines without knowing anything about them, [O] proves it's possible. 61-62 points."
Ouch.


Comentario de / Comment of Wines Inform Assessors:


De acuerdo con lo dicho por Paul Vanderberg. Matizaría que cada crítico tienes su prestigio y sus limitaciones.
Conozco un crítico excelente en España al que su bondad, sentido de la amistad y gran capacidad literaria le puede volver menos útil a la hora de decidir comprar el vino/bodega del que habla. Sus descripciones incitan a conocer la bodega y sus productos y ésto me parece su gran valor como comentarista
Al final es un debate tan antiguo el de la democracia: como se deben elegir los representantes, dando el mismo valor a cada voto o limitando los votos a "los preparados"?
Personalmente doy siempre más valor al conjunto de opiniones de los consumidores que uno puede consultar por diferentes mecanismos (y que luego uno mismo considerará acertadas o no)
Por curiosidad miro las valoraciones de la bodega de Paul Vanderberg en Maps Google y son excelentes y creo que sinceras. Este mecanismo permite corregir las opiniones de los críticos habituales y de los premios , a los que sinceramente cada vez presto menos atención
Wines Inform Assessors, Barcelona
..........................................................................
According to what Paul Vanderberg said. I would point out that each critic has his prestige and limitations.
I know an excellent critic in Spain whose kindness, sense of friendship and great literary ability can make him less useful when deciding to buy the wine/cellar he is talking about. His descriptions incite to know the winery and its products and this seems to me its great value as a commentator
At the end  the debate is so old and similar to those about democracy: how to choose the representatives, giving the same value to each vote or limiting the votes to "the prepared"?
Personally I always give more value to the set of opinions of the consumers that one can consult by different mechanisms (and which in the end will be checked by myself.)
By curiosity, I look at the valuations of Paul Vanderberg's winery on Google Maps and they are excellent and I think this opinions are sincere. This mechanism allows us to correct the opinions of the usual critics and the prizes, to which I sincerely pay less attention.
Wines Inform Assessors, Barcelona
..............................................................
OnceASomm wrote:

06-Jun-2018 at 08:47:45 (GMT)

There are 18 critics mentioned on the letter but only 15 reported on this article.

Why has Don Kavanagh omitted some?

I would however agree with one l isted in the 61-62 range, adding that he is also often seen drunk at tastings.

Craig Teets wrote:

03-Jun-2018 at 18:19:56 (GMT)

Link to letter please. I promise not to tell where it came from. :)

Oliv wrote:

03-Jun-2018 at 10:07:46 (GMT)

Critics have been named (and content translated in french) here...

https://www.lapassionduvin.com/forum/a-propos/38546-de-l-information-a-la-prescription-le-critique-entrepreneur?start=420#1025704

Paul Vandenberg wrote:

02-Jun-2018 at 23:18:52 (GMT)

Any producer can tell many an eye rolling story of "critics".
Most print reviews are a pay to play, quid pro abomination.
Too many "critics" are old, fat, guys, who smoke cigars.
Research shows tasting sensitivity is in general; lower after fifty, lower in males, lower in smokers, and latest research indicates obesity reduces sensitivity by 25%. Hmm?
Any one want to host a Wine Critics Open? I have some ideas on how to evaluate abilities.
I haven't sent wine to acritic or competition in decades, I'm not afraid to criticize critics.
Paul Vandenberg
Paradisos del Sol

CM 3000 wrote:

01-Jun-2018 at 21:55:55 (GMT)

"...discredits the title of Master of Wine ﾖ if it still has any credibility in the eyes of wine professionals." Absolutely classic.

Win-O wrote:

01-Jun-2018 at 21:36:07 (GMT)

Can anyone please find the link of the original letter?

Rodrigo Musiello wrote:

01-Jun-2018 at 20:22:05 (GMT)

Anyone has access to the original article? thx

Mark C wrote:

01-Jun-2018 at 19:27:04 (GMT)

Bordeaux prices are set on the basis of the wine critic event en primeur so much is at stake here. I think it's only fair to have critics held up to some sort of standard beyond their popularity or reputation. Bravo to whatever producer came forward. It would be nice to see some of this in the new world.

Rodrigo Musiello wrote:

01-Jun-2018 at 04:03:25 (GMT)

Has this letter gone public? Curious to see who is who here...

Origin information: WineSearcher

New Cava classification dispels ‘myth’ that small wineries own artisan credentials ... Comentario de / Comment of Wines Inform Assessors

New Cava classification dispels ‘myth’ that small wineries own artisan credentials 

 

Xavier Pagès, CEO of Codorniu Raventós

by Arabella Mileham 


The new single estate Cava classification is likely to “do away with the myth that only small wineries can craft artisan and quality offerings”, Codorniu Raventos CEO Javier Pagés has claimed.
Speaking to db following the unveiling of the first twelve estates recognised under Cava’s new ultra-premium ‘Cava de Paraje’ tier, Pagés said it was proud to have three of the company’s estates recognised under the new classification, which would showcase the winemaking expertise of the company’s long history.
“This recognition is a milestone in the history of Cava and helps us to keep on elaborating great Cavas and wines, and to do away with the myth that only small wineries can craft artisan and quality offerings. Is an acknowledgment to an exceptional terroir and to the degree of excellence in our elaboration,” he said.
The three vineyards recognised as ‘Cava de Paraje’ comprise Finca La Fideuera in Alt Penedès, Finca La Pleta in Costers del Segre and Finca El Tros Nou in Conca de Barberà, which Pages points out represent different terroirs in three different climate zones, which are planted with the three different grape varieties (Xarel.lo, Chardonnay, and Pinot Noir). Grapes from the three vineyards are used in Codorniu’s Ars Collecta Codorníu range, which was launched on the market last December.
“Is an acknowledgment to an exceptional terroir and to the degree of excellence in our elaboration,” Pagés said.
Javier Pages, CEO of Codorniu Raventos
He argued that the new category would show Cava as a premium product that “can comfortably go cork-to-cork” with best sparkling wines in the world.
The aim of the classification was to get people to have the same level of respect and quality for Cava as they have for Bordeaux or Champagne, he explained, and this was likely to cast a halo effect on the premium end of the Cava market.
“Nowadays, the prestige business (ie consumer sales of more than €12) already exceeds 20% of sales in our group,” he said.
He added that the premium Cava offer had also become more interesting for global consumers in recent years, and this had become a primary strategy both for Codorníu and the wider cava market.
“We strongly believe that’s the only way [forward].”
As part of the classification process, the company looked at around 3,000 hectares of its vineyards to identify the best sites, which Pagés said had boosted the quality of its wines across the board.
“It enabled the group to raise the quality of all its products, as we identified a number of extraordinary vineyards,” he explained. “Accordingly this classification has born an ambitious project that will develop for over a decade.
Cava unveiled the first twelve sites to its new single classification ‘Cava de Paraje’, which was first proposed by the Cava Regulatory Board in May 2015, last week.


Comentario de / Comment of Wines Inform Assessors:


No estoy seguro de que ésta sea la manera de mostrar los buenos cavas que se hacen en Cataluña .
Decanter informa de: "Codorníu said that it only made around 300 bottles each of its three wines in the new classification, with a recommended retail price of 90 euros per bottle." Esta cifra en una empresa que produce 45 millones de botellas muestra una acción de marketing no correcta y que a a larga no lleva a ningún lado
Se prima parece el lugar físico de producción y ello me parece un gran error . El primer valor son los productores -ayudados por tantos otros elementos necesarios: tierra, técnica, variedades de uva, ilusión, instalaciones adecuadas, ...-
Codorniu es una empresa con prestigio y con un tamaño que les permite hacer de todo ...a seguir la evolución de esta nueva manera de clasificar cavas y confiar en  que no sea simplemente una arma de propaganda
Wines Inform Assessors, Barcelona
....................................................
I am not sure that this is the way to show the good cavas that are made in Catalonia.
Decanter reports: "Codorníu said that it only made about 300 bottles each of its three wines in the new classification, with a recommended retail price of 90 euros per bottle." This figure in a company that produces 45 million bottles shows a marketing action that is not correct and that in the long run leads nowhere
It seems like the physical place of production seems to me to be a big mistake. The first value is the producers - assisted by so many other necessary elements: earth, technique, grape varieties, illusion, adequate facilities,...
Codorniu is a company with prestige and a size that allows them to do everything ... to follow the evolution of this new way to classify cavas and trust that it is not simply a propaganda weapon
Wines Inform Assessors, Barcelona


Origin information: The Drink Business

Michelin & Robert Parker Wine Advocate Join Forces ... Comentario de / Comment of Wines Inform Assessors

Michelin & Robert Parker Wine Advocate Join Forces

Boulogne-Billancourt, France (July 5, 2017):


Michelin, the globally renowned tire company and name behind the world's leading guide to quality restaurants, MICHELIN guide, announced today its acquisition of a 40% stake in Robert Parker Wine Advocate and RobertParker.com, the world's most widely read independent consumers' guide to fine wine.

Founded by the American Robert M. Parker in 1978, Robert Parker Wine Advocate is the international authority on wine. The power of the ratings given to fine wines are based on the noses and palates of the passionate wine critic and his team of experts, but also on a methodology that is unique in this field. Robert Parker's affirmed independence with regard to wine producers and the wine trade is the key to producing unbiased, credible reviews.


Following professionally conducted peer group tastings, each wine receives not only a descriptive tasting note, but a qualitative score ranging between 50 and 100 points. Thanks to this rigorous system, Robert Parker Wine Advocate has over many years acquired an international reputation that remains solidly anchored and trusted by wine collectors all over the world. Today, the wine publication produces nearly 40,000 wine reviews annually.

Robert Parker Wine Advocate, has offices in Singapore, Napa, CA and Monkton, MD. The RobertParker.com website includes online archives of every Issue of The Wine Advocate dating back to 1992, consisting of more than 300,000 original tasting notes. RPWA has recently developed a special events platform that enables the public to experience fine wine together with gourmet dining. Since 2016, Robert Parker Wine Advocate and Michelin have joined forces in Singapore and Hong Kong-Macau to offer unique dining experiences based on pairing fine cuisine and wine. The highly successful events offer consumers the chance to experience a selection of dishes prepared by the MICHELIN guide's "starred" chefs and compatible wines recommended by Robert Parker Wine Advocate's experts.

"Working with the MICHELIN guide on events in Singapore and Hong Kong-Macau demonstrated to both of our companies how much richer and more impactful the experiences we create for our loyal readers can be when we come together," commented Robert Parker Wine Advocate's Editor-in-Chief and Master of Wine, Lisa Perrotti-Brown. "The similarities between our core values, integrity and rigor as critics within the worlds of wine and food were striking. It very soon became apparent that merging to create a sum that is even better than our parts would be an incredible means of offering fine food and wine lovers around the world even more." 

Founder Robert Parker has been thrilled over the union of the two most independent sources for fine cuisine and wine, and the infinite possibilities it creates: « Far too long critics have divided wine and food into two separate areas of expertise, but now the most realistic blend of impartial, independent, unbiased, intelligent food and wine opinion and wisdom have been married for the benefit of both wine and food consumers. »

With this equity investment, Michelin is strengthening and broadening its experience in the area of gourmet dining.

"Around the world, the credibility of Michelin and Robert Parker Wine Advocate is based on unique selection systems, organized around a proven methodology and undeniable independence," says Alexandre Taisne, CEO Food and Travel Business de Michelin. "The partnership between Michelin, the global reference in gourmet dining with the MICHELIN guide, and Robert Parker Wine Advocate, the world leader in wine tasting and rating, will enable our customers who enjoy upscale restaurants and fine vintage wines to experience unique moments. Initially we are focusing on markets in Asia and North America before pursuing our deployment in Europe and others regions of the world. We look forward to leveraging our strong relationship to develop even broader offerings for our customers."

About Michelin

Michelin is committed to improving the mobility of its customers over the long term. A leader in the tire industry, Michelin designs, manufactures and distributes tires that are closely adapted to the needs and usage conditions as well as services and other solutions that make mobility more efficient. Michelin also provides offerings that enable its customers to experience unique moments during their trips and travels. In addition, Michelin has developed high-tech materials for manufacturing companies in the mobility sector. Headquartered in Clermont-Ferrand, Michelin is present in 170 countries, has 111,700 employees and operates 68 plants in 17 countries that together produced 187 million tires in 2016 (www.michelin.com).

About the MICHELIN guide

The MICHELIN guide selects the best restaurants and hotels in 28 countries in which it operates. A full-fledged showcase of fine dining around the world, the guide focuses on the culinary dynamism of a country, as well as on emerging trends and talented chefs of tomorrow. A creator of value for restaurants thanks to the distinction it awards every year, the MICHELIN guide supports the standing of local gastronomy and the tourist appeal of regions. Based on its rigorous selection method and its long-term understanding of the hospitality industry, the MICHELIN guide gives its customers unique expertise that enables it to provide them with a high-quality service.

Its selections are available in print and digital versions that are accessible via the Web and on a full range of mobile media that offer navigation adapted to individual use as well as an online booking service.

With the MICHELIN guide, the Group continues to support millions of travelers, enabling them to live a unique mobility experience.

About Robert Parker Wine Advocate

For more than 39 years,The Wine Advocate, and later RobertParker.com, have been the global leader and independent consumer's guide to fine wine. The brand was established by the internationally recognized, Robert M. Parker, Jr., the only critic in any field to receive the highest Presidential honor from three countries - France, Italy and Spain. Robert Parker Wine Advocate provides a wealth of information to its subscribers, including a searchable database of more than 300,000 professional wine ratings and reviews, in addition to articles, videos, daily news content, online retail availability and pricing, an active, professionally moderated bulletin board, a mobile app for easy access to the comprehensive online database of reviews and much more.


For more information, visit www.RobertParker.com .


Comentario de / Comment of Wines Inform Assessors:


Las voces que recomiendan son múltiples y personalmente prefiero las valoraciones no interesadas y con conocimiento del sector. Muchas veces son expertos locales como Pau Arenós o Joan Gómez Pallarès o nosotros mismos en Wines Inform Assessors -por citar algunos ejemplos- los que son capaces de orientar al consumidor.
La distancia geográfica a los productores no facilita que las valoraciones sean correctas
Es evidente que el nivel de influencia es superior cuanta mayor sea la audiencia y en este caso las opiniones de Robert Parker , ahora reforzadas con su asociación a Michelin, serán seguidas por muchos importadores y consumidores. Sin embargo estas recomendaciones pueden no ser las más útiles y el valor d elas recomendaciones locales como guía para importadores, distribuidores y consumidores es insustituible y una mejor garantía de satisfacción en las compras


Wines Inform Assessors
............................................
The voices that recommend are multiple and I personally prefer the valuations not interested and with knowledge of the sector. Many times local experts such as Pau Arenós or Joan Gómez Pallarès or ourselves in Wines Inform Assessors - to cite a few examples - are able to guide better the consumer.
The geographical distance to the producers does not make the valuations correct
It is evident that the level of influence is greater the more the audience and in this case the opinions of Robert Parker, now reinforced by its association with Michelin, will be followed by many importers and consumers. However these recommendations may not be the most useful and the value of local recommendations as a guide for importers, distributors and consumers is irreplaceable and a better guarantee of satisfaction in purchases

Wines Inform Assessors
............

Origin information: Nasdaq

Jefford on Monday: Scoring for value .. Comment of / Comentario de Wines Inform Assessors:

Jefford on Monday: Scoring for value

Andrew Jefford says anything else is just not possible...

• Andrew Jefford

Jefford: Wine scoring

Regular blog-column reader Kent Benson has a close eye for detail, often being the first to point out my errors, so when I wrote recently that I had taken price into account in my scoring of a selection from the Pays d’Oc Trophy Collection, he was quickly on the case. “I’m surprised you would factor price into your rating scale.


Does this mean that these scores would have been lower had the prices been higher? How is the reader to know just how much the price influences your score? Or, have I misunderstood?” It’s an excellent question and my answers follow. But if you’ve had enough of reading about scores (I can’t blame you) or feel the very principle of scoring wine is preposterous (you’re right – but it’s useful), hit the back button now.


First, let me point out that Decanter officially sits on both sides of this particular fence. The rubric for Decanter magazine tastings reads “Prices are not revealed, and thus not taken into consideration when scoring.”


When it comes to the Decanter World Wine Awards, however, judges are told which of five UK retail price
bands a particular wine falls into, or would fall into were that wine sold in the UK based on the indicative price provided by the producer (A = up to £7.99, B = £8 – £14.99, C = £15-£29.99, D = £30-£59.99, E = £60+).


“Take into account the retail price of each wine,” read the judging instructions. “A Gold under £15 might not receive a Gold if it were in the over £15 category.” It doesn’t happen often, but I can certainly remember Gold Medal wines from price category A which would not have received that medal at higher price categories.


Now over to you: the consumer. It’s unlikely that the price of a wine is a matter of complete indifference to you.


No one reading this column will be limitlessly wealthy. You wouldn’t lay into a bottle of 2010 Latour with the same abandon that you’d lay into a bottle of 2015 Côtes du Rhône. A wine, in other words, is always a wine at a price. You’ll judge a £10, $10 or €10 bottle in a very different way to a £100, $100 or €100 bottle. You may or may not go to the trouble of scoring wines for yourself, but whatever verdict you reach will always relate to price.


One of the fundamental misunderstandings about point-scoring systems is that they are in some way universally calibrated. It’s particularly tempting to assume this now that almost every issuer of scores has switched over to the 100-point scale, since these scores give an impression of homogeneity and consistency.


Some tasters, too, may work under the impression that they are using their scoring system in a universal manner, or actually seek to give this impression as a way to create “authority”.


It’s not possible – because the quality potential of wine regions varies so enormously. If you are rigorously honest about the level of attainment of the world’s finest, then the wines of “up-and-coming” regions, even the most successful, would be condemned to scores of less than 70 points, since they are comprehensively adrift of the quality summits. By any universal scale, few wines of regions of ordinary attainment could hope to score much more than 80 points. It would be hard for any wine from a non-classic region (or a ‘non-noble’ grape variety) to obtain a perfect score, or even a score in the high 90s. Would all of this be fair to the drinking experience of consumers? No, it wouldn’t, because consumers are always buying and judging a wine at a price. The unfairness of universality is why (I assume) Robert Parker’s tasting rubric always insisted that “The numerical rating given is a guide to what I think of the wine vis-à-vis its peer group”.

Peer groups differ by quality potential – and they differ by price, too. I recently took part in a Decanter magazine tasting of 2014 Médoc cru bourgeois wines where the highest noted price was £35 and where most wines cost less than £30. We didn’t have price information as we scored – but we did score in a manner appropriate to this particular peer group, which means in a different way to the manner in which we would have scored had the tasting included the wines of the entire region, First Growths and Right Bank stars included.


So I would suggest to Kent Benson that all scores from all scorers already take price into account to some extent. They do this to a greater extent when the peer group is closely prescribed, and to a lesser extent when it is loosely prescribed. (The maximum level of prescription would come when you know exactly what the retail price is of a wine you are scoring.) If you taste and score by peer group, then de facto you taste and score by price. Consumers understand this in a kind of rough-and-ready way, and are relaxed about it.


I’m still not happy, though. Why not? I think that ‘scoring for value’ should go much further than it already does in order to do the best possible job for the consuming public. In other words, I feel that every peer group potentially has the right to have ‘a perfect wine’ or one that approaches perfection – a wine that could not, by the lights of that peer group, be any better than it already is.


It’s not hard to imagine a Sancerre, or a Picpoul de Pinet, or an Eden Valley Riesling, or a Torrontès from Salta, or a Marlborough Sauvignon, or a Côtes de Provence rosé, or a Morgon Côte de Py, or a Côtes du Rhône red or a wine from one of hundreds of other peer groups to smell and to taste “just perfect” – for what it’s meant to be (and cost). We’ve all had wines of that sort that left us feeling like that. The experience is different in kind to that offered by ‘a fine wine’, but equal in excitement and pleasure. So if a taster comes across a wine like that, why shouldn’t he or she give it 97 or 98 points for exceptional peer-group attainment?


This would be readily understood as such. If a taster gives a Picpoul de Pinet 98 points, in other words, no one would seriously expect it to be as good as a Montrachet with an identical score sold at 20 or 30 times the price. They would simply understand that it was a truly outstanding example of what is a fundamentally simpler wine.


We have not, though, yet got to that advanced level of wine-tasting consciousness – or scoring courage. In most cases, tasters seem to choose where to ‘top out’ with scores for particular peer groups and vintages, and just leave consumers to guess that for a certain peer group, a certain score roughly equates with the best imaginable wine for that peer group. It’s hard for any Beaujolais cru wine to come away with more than 93 or 94 points; for New Zealand Sauvignon to get more than 90 or 91; or for Picpoul de Pinet to get into the 90s at all. In big peer groups, this is often deeply unfair. When an entire high-quality Bordeaux vintage is being tasted (as the 2016s shortly will be), even the most outstanding cru bourgeois will be lucky to get 90 points, which would be ridiculous if such wines were to be calibrated, ten years later, with rival Cabernet-Merlot blends from ‘up and coming’ regions which were initially awarded identical point scores, though it makes perfect sense when you consider the volume and attainment of its regional peers in that vintage.


The value perspective is always there, in sum — but blurrily. It would be good to see more clarity about this, so that every outstanding wine from every peer group could enjoy its day in the sun.


Comment of / Comentario de Wines Inform Assessors:


It really is not easy to find a method of recommending wines ... Perhaps the first problem is to recommend a wine and a vintage and having been tasted - perhaps a single bottle - in unsafe conditions, next to a test of many other wines, In a distant territory and after a long journey subject to temperature changes.

As a consumer I prefer a deep recommendation based on the knowledge of the winery, choosing a wine that you follow and know that it will vary from one vintage to another


Wines Inform Assessors


..................


Realmente no es fácil el buscar un método de recomendar vinos...Quizás el primer problema es recomendar un vino y una añada y habiendo sido probado -quizás una única botella- en condiciones no seguras ,al lado de una prueba de otros muchos vinos, en un territorio lejano y tras un largo viaje sujeto a cambios de temperatura.


Como consumidor prefiero una recomendación profunda basada en el conocimiento de la bodega, en escoger un vino al que uno sigue y sabe que variará de una añada a otra


Wines Inform Assessors




Origin information: Decanter

Cómo trolear al mundo del vino y que todos te aplaudan. Una gran mentira, un restaurante inventado y una revista en ridículo...Comentario de Wines Inform Assessors

Cómo trolear al mundo del vino y que todos te aplaudan

Una gran mentira, un restaurante inventado y una revista en ridículo

Por: Rosa Molinero ,

Robin Goldstein (Nueva York, 1976) es un escritor y crítico gastronómico y de vino reconocido por su rebeldía frente al encorsetado sector en el que trabaja. Por ejemplo, ha escrito artículos como ¿La gente puede distinguir el paté de la comida de perro? Pero por lo que mejor se le conoce es por haber dejado en evidencia a una de las revistas de vino más importantes de EE.UU.

Corría el año 2008 cuando a Goldstein le picó la curiosidad para saber en qué se basan los críticos de vino para otorgar los premios. Empezó una investigación académica que se publicaría en la Asociación Americana de Economistas del Vino y sería recordada como la troleada máxima a la revista Wine Spectator.

Su trabajo de campo consistió en presentar una candidatura al Premio a la Excelencia con la Osteria L’Intrepido, un restaurante de Milán que no ha existido jamás aparte de en la imaginación de Goldstein.

Cuenta cómo lo hizo en el artículo donde destapó esta mentira que a la vez mostró la falta de rigor de un mundo elitista, rimbombante y difícil de creer en la mayoría de las veces. Pagó los 250 dólares para participar, mandó una carta de presentación, el menú del restaurante y la carta de vinos. Para darle más credibilidad al asunto, obtuvo un teléfono milanés y abrió una página web, tareas en las que invirtió menos de tres horas.

En total, se contaban 2.100 referencias. La carta principal de vinos consistía en una cuidada selección de botellas italianas hecha según los criterios de la revista. Pero bajo el título “Los rojos italianos reserva de nuestra bodega”, se listaban los vinos más caros y exclusivos, que en realidad eran los vinos peor puntuados por la revista durante las últimas décadas.

Algunos de esos vinos “reserva” que tanto gustaban ahora a los críticos de Wine Spectator, antaño habían tenido reseñas por su parte tan cargadas de mala leche como estas:  “Tienen sabor muy poco limpio, como a regaliz rancio”, “Inacceptable. Dulce y empalagoso. Huele a insecticida”, “Sabe entre laca de uñas y aguarrás”, “Huele a cuadra y sabe a podredumbre”.

Obviamente, la revista se rebotó al enterarse de que todo era falso, a Robin Goldstein lo pusieron de vuelta y media y dijeron que habían llamado al restaurante varias veces antes de darle el premio, cosa que el crítico afirma que no sucedió.

El único mensaje que le dejaron en el contestador fue para anunciarle que había ganado y para preguntarle si quería pagar para anunciarse en su web, mensaje que puede escucharse aquí.

Después que en agosto del mismo año su restaurante imaginario fuese galardonado por la revista, Goldstein escribió un artículo reflexionando de esta manera al respecto de lo sucedido:

“Aunque la Osteria L’Intrepido sea la primera en ganar un Premio de Excelencia y ser un restaurante imaginario, probablemente no sea la primera candidatura que no refleja de forma precisa lo que realmente contiene la bodega de los restaurantes”.

“Si Google, Chowhound, y un par de llamadas sin contestar son suficientes, no sólo para justificar la existencia de un restaurante pero para autentificar su carta de vinos, entonces no está claro qué papel está llevando a cabo el crítico”.

Chapeau.

Comentario de Wines Inform Assessors:

Hace años (¿15?) al inicio de mi relación con el sector del vino me encontré con una relevante revista americana , que he perdido la memoria al respecto de quien era, puntuaba como excelentes los vinos con la marca "René Barbier" confundiendo al elaborador y respetado productor y persona física René Barbier con la marca que había quedado en poder de la empresa Freixenet

Al hacerles ver el error no obtuve ninguna respuesta

La conclusión es que en tantas empresas falla la comunicación (que debe ser siempre bidireccional) y que las valoraciones "profesionales" deben ser tenidas por sospechosas de entrada, ya por que sean pagadas o por faltas de conocimiento real del producto.

El paso del tiempo y las sucesivas valoraciones que realice  permiten decantar el valor real de las opiniones y recomendaciones de los críticos gastronómicos, que en primer lugar debieran tener como "cliente" al consumidor


Wines Inform Assessors

Orígen información: PlayGround

¿Ayudan los premios a vender vino?

La cata de Ribeira Sacra mantiene la participación de las últimas ediciones, pero con alguna ausencia destacada

MONFORTE

Las catas de vinos no son lo que eran. Dejaron de despertar la expectación que rodeaba en otros tiempos toda entrega de premios. Medallas que eran sinónimo de ventas garantizadas pasan con más pena que gloria por delante del consumidor. ¿Demasiados concursos? «Sin duda. No me puedo quejar por la parte que me corresponde, pero hay una sobresaturación», opina Luis Paadín, autor de la Guía de Vinos, Destilados y Bodegas de Galicia. Los concursos, según su criterio, interesan más a nuevas marcas que buscan ser competitivas en precio. «Los vinos más caros van a las catas de los prescriptores que las bodegas consideran más influyentes», opina el sumiller coruñés.

Los premios marcan una jerarquía. Muchas veces, la diferencia de unas décimas en las puntuaciones delimita la frontera entre la gloria y el anonimato. El experto sabe que un vino no tiene que ser necesariamente mejor o peor por llevar o no medalla. La percepción de los consumidores es otra historia. «Ninguna bodega consagrada se expone a llevar una medalla de plata», apunta Paadín. Algueira y Guímaro, por ejemplo, no participan en la Mostra dos Viños da Ribeira Sacra. Tampoco acuden desde hace años a la Cata dos Viños de Galicia, otro concurso que ha ido perdiendo fuelle con el paso del tiempo.

César Enríquez, al que ha sonreído la fama después de que su vino acabase en la copa de Obama, es de los que siguen acudiendo a ambos concursos. «Non me gusta ver as catas como unha competición, pero penso que hai que estar. Incluso na dos Viños de Galicia, coa que estou en desacordo. Non se poden deixar fóra tantos viños só porque non alcanzan un número de litros», dice el propietario de Adega Cachín.

El bodeguero de A Abeleda no es partidario, por otra parte, de recoger en las bodegas las muestras que van luego a las catas. «As botellas hai que collelas onde están á venta, é unha forma de evitarlle problemas aos catadores. Hai adegas que mesturan todos os depósitos para facer un so viño e quen ten lotes moi diferentes entre si», advierte.

Una nueva Cata da Ribeira Sacra arranca hoy en el Centro do Viño. Participan treinta de las más de noventa bodegas inscritas en la denominación de origen, en la línea de la respuesta de las últimas ediciones. En tiempos concursaban más bodegas, pero el número de muestras era inferior. Señal de que los elaboradores han ampliado sus catálogos. Es el caso de Adega Guímaro, ganadora de alguna de las primeras ediciones y ausente de esta cata desde hace años.

«Non imos a ningunha. Salvo na feira de Amandi, por manter a tradición», explica Pedro Rodríguez. La experiencia le dice que el consumidor ha ganado criterio propio y se deja influenciar cada vez menos por la avalancha anual de premios. «Poden incrementar as ventas unha semana ou dúas, pero convencer aos clientes é un traballo de todo o ano», sostiene el bodeguero.

Origen información: La Voz de Galicia

Best sparkling wines of 2016 according to Decanter...Comment of Wines Inform Assessors

Our experts have chosen top sparkling wines and Champagne tasted in the past year. See five of the best below. And you can find more in the current issue of Decanter magazine...

Best sparkling wines of 2016

Decanter experts around the world named the five bottles under £55 that impressed them most this year, of any wine style.
These were re-tasted by a panel of Decanter tastings director Christelle Guibert, Sarah Jane Evans MW and Andy Howard MW. They picked the below as the most exciting sparkling wines of 2016.

This is part of best wines of 2016 series. Look out for more wines in the next week.


Comment of Wines Inform Assessors


Why the best? It would be not more real say the "The five sparking wines that I have enjoyed the most"?..
Or perhaps title: "After trying these 50 wines these are the ones that I found to be better"
There are thousands of brands of sparkling wines and pretend to know and value them all is impossible or create scales of valuation and at last consumers feel that ratings and awards are sponsored
Wines Inform Assessors


Origin information: Decanter

Decanter: Andrew Jefford weighs up why some wines are trusted more than others, and what producers can do to inspire trust..Comment of Wines Inform Assessors

Andrew Jefford weighs up why some wines are trusted more than others, and what producers can do to inspire trust.

Mas de Daumas Gassac vineyards in Languedoc. Credit: Daumas Gassac

Andrew Jefford

When historians look back on 2016, they’ll focus on the erosion of trust — in expertise, in experience, in institutions, even in objective truths themselves — to account in part for the political upheavals of the year.  It’s a disquieting trend, as thoughtful wine drinkers know: the wine world and its historical dramas offer compelling evidence of just how important trust is.
Wine matters so much to us not merely because of its alcoholic content, but because some wines are surpassingly better, in terms of the sensual and drinking pleasure they provide, than others.

---

A classic wine is a familiar one which inspires affection and is trusted to deliver a certain satisfaction

---

Once that difference is clear, the identity of the superior wine becomes vulnerable to usurpation.  Those paying more for superior wine need to be able to trust its identity.  From the smiling Roman with a bargain amphora of Falernian, via the Champagne travesties of the early twentieth century to the seemingly lustrous auction consignments of Rudy Kurniawan, passing off ordinary wine as superior has always been enticingly profitable.
This is why wine law is principally concerned with the protection of the names and identities of particular territories.  Production stipulations attract much comment, but they’re provisional and secondary.  (We take wine law for granted, but just how complex and painstaking a process it in fact is can be illustrated by the 24-year timeline I append to the end of this piece concerning the awarding of appellation status to the as-yet-little-known Gard zone of Duché d’Uzès.   We should be less cynical about wine law.)
New markets create wondrous opportunities for the unscrupulous, since a new market means a mass of trusting but inexperienced consumers.  The most notable example of this phenomenon over recent years has been China; France’s Foreign Trade Advisory Board cautioned in 2015 that one in every two bottles of ‘French’ wine sold in China might be counterfeit.  This colossal problem will take many years to resolve.
The vastly expanded global secondary wine market, though, has also provided a new cohort of trusting but inexperienced consumers, as well as culpably gullible intermediaries and gatekeepers.  Maureen Downey’s work on wine authentication via her winefraud.com website, and through her recently launched Chai Wine Vault initiative, lays the groundwork for a response.  This is just one field among many in which we need more experts, not fewer. When trust disappears altogether, markets collapse and the prosperity of all is eroded.  You and I are still recovering from the loss of trust which precipitated the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2008, though we may not understand in what ways or be able to quantify our losses accurately.  (It’s thought to be around $16,000 each.)
When I last wrote about trust as a concept, I concentrated on its practical aspects.  I’ve now, though, come to believe that trust itself is one of the qualities which characterise classic wine.
This has nothing to do with the authentication of auction stock; what I have in mind is the process which you may have gone through when you chose the red wine to put on your Christmas table.  You probably won’t have risked an experiment or a punt; you’ll have chosen something you know, love … and trust.  A classic wine is a familiar one which inspires affection and is trusted to deliver a certain satisfaction.  The wines which sell best over the longest term are those which most drinkers go back to, time and time again.  It may be Léoville-Barton; it may be Ridge; it may be a Penfolds grandee; it may be Rioja Alta’s 890 or 904; it may be Mas de Daumas Gassac or a Travaglini Gattinara.  (I could have mentioned hundreds of other names.)  Where does this trust come from, and how can you create it?

Raw materials

Propitious vineyards are obviously a pre-requisite, but this is less of a hurdle than it might seem, since potential is reflected in price and in any case difference is relished by wine consumers.  Monte Bello is not Léoville-Barton, and neither is Mas de Daumas; the vineyard sources for the reds of Penfolds and Rioja Alta vary from year to year. The point is that contributing vineyards not only have a fitness for purpose, validated by their economic survival, but beyond that are capable of producing wines of palpable gastronomic interest, with potential for age and development.  But they don’t have to be ‘the best’.  Indeed there is sometimes something a little overblown and effortful about those wines aspiring to be ‘the best’ which the creators of trusted classics instinctively seek to avoid.

Seriousness of purpose

I’d rather not talk about viticulture or wine-making in this context since that immediately implies a set of strategies, whereas that which creates trust is not a level of yield or wine-making technique, but rather an honest seriousness of purpose, springing from a certain aesthetic vision: the desire to create balanced, drinkable wine of textured finesse, with gastronomic aptitude and the ability to age.  It doesn’t matter where you are in the wine world; it’s that nobility of vocation –- the determination to make a wine which works its magic on the drinker at table in the way that good wine has on its drinkers from Homer’s time onwards – which lays the ground work for a potential classic.

Visual signatures

A distinctive visual signature, and in particular label colours and design, is another important element intimately bound up with the acquisition of trust.  The ‘face’ of a wine, after all, is the visual appearance of a particular bottle; you should be able to recognise this from across a room, as you would an old friend, and that label, too, should strike the eye in the same way as the wine appeals to the nose and the mouth.  Proportion, balance and elegance are the default ideal, and rarely fail to appeal, though there is room for innovation, too, particularly for wines of non-European origin.  Once you have the label, though, stick with it.  A signature is that which does not change.

Consistency

Consistency is essential in forging the bonds of trust between drinker and wine.  Not, of course, a consistency which would scrub away vintage character – since that would be a betrayal of the seriousness of purpose I alluded to above.  Part of the contract between drinker and wine is that different vintages should bring different pleasures.  The consistency which wins trust, though, is a pattern and thread which can be seen through every vintage: the aromatic and flavoury equivalent of the visual signature above.  It’s important, too, to promise and deliver a certain level of quality every year, too – so if a truly dreadful vintage does happen along, then it’s best to skip that entirely, or only release a second label.

Endurance

Classics endure – so that which endures acquires the potential for classic status.  By the time a wine has been through thirty vintage incarnations, it has won its economic spurs and found its market.  It’s a wine that drinkers conspicuously know and trust – and is therefore in the running for classic status.  Producers, thus, are best advised to resist a torrent of innovation along the way, and to avoid, perhaps, too many dalliances with special cuvées, no matter how sensational the results in a particular vintage.

The passage of time

In the end, a wine producer cannot control everything along the path to trust and to classicism.  Time has to provide its own scrutiny – and, if all goes well, its eventual benediction.  Many classics are a multi-generational creation; the work of those who may have spent 40 or 50 vintages in pursuit of a particular ideal and who have then passed on and left their attainments in the hands of others.
What is the role of drinkers in all of this? It’s a key one – and different drinkers perform different functions.  One reason why wine criticism has had the effect it has over the last three decades is that the endorsement of critics can fast-forward the winning of trust: a high score, if you like, is ‘instant trust’.  But anything instant must always be provisional: drinkers, real drinkers, then put the score to the test, and it’s the expression of their verdicts via the marketplace which is the final one.  High-scoring wines sometimes fail to convince the market.  A true classic is born when a wine is trusted without endorsement.

Finally, too, I should point out (in wine as in life) that trust requires faith, and cynicism erodes it.  This is the great danger of the present time.  All of us know that the deepest and most rewarding relationships we have with the wines we love are, in a way, reciprocal; the intimacy of understanding creates ever deeper bonds, but we have to give a particular wine our trust first of all, and follow it with conviction, allowing each vintage to reach articulacy in the fullness of time, in order to enjoy that rewarding intimacy.  A cellar full of 100-point singletons isn’t quite the same thing.

Duché d’Uzès: the long road to an appellation

1989: Vins de Pays du Duché d’Uzès comes into being.
1991: Formation of a local committee to try to get VDQS status for the wines.
1992: Production rules drawn up.
1995: Vineyard inspections.  The growing area is extended from 122 villages to 132 villages.
2000: Local growers visit INAO to present their dossier.
2002: The VDQS files are submitted, and the investigation committee begins its work.
2003 to 2005: The investigation committee’s work continues; independent experts provide opinions.
2006: Following suggestions from the independent experts, the number of eligible villages is cut to 104.  Later that year, the INAO requests a further reduction in the area.  Finally in November all work stops when the VDQS category becomes defunct.
2007: INAO is reformed.  The growers resolve to try to obtain AOC (AOP) status.
2008: The number of villages is further reduced to 77, and production charter is tightened.
2009: The application for AOC status is accepted.
2010-2011: Experts begin work on defining the growing zone in detail and identifying its constituent parcels.
2012-2013: Some 694 parcels are identified, covering 580 ha.
2013: The 2012 stocks are confirmed as being of acceptable standard.
20^th July 2013: The appellation finally awarded to wines of the 2012 vintage onwards.  And all this, of course, is only the very first rung of the ladder towards potential classic status …         
Comment of Wines Inform Assessors


This is one of the best reviews I have read about the wine world - Andrew Jefford say "When historians look back on 2016, they’ll focus on the erosion of trust — in expertise, in experience, in institutions, even in objective truths themselves " - giving the right criteria to buy wine and value products and brands


Wines Inform Assessors


Origin information: Decanter