The Score on Scores

Okay, I’m still slacking on my last few France updates. Basically I’ve sworn that until I take the time to actually start posting pictures from the trip I’m not going to blog about it anymore. This, plus the fact that the last few weeks a lot has been happening that I’ve wanted to talk about, is why I’ve decided to take another break from France trip report. So this week I’m not just doing a bullet-points update—I’ve got an actual theme.

This past week issue 172 of The Wine Advocate was released. Robert Parker’s bi-monthly wine review publication is by far and more the most powerful voice in the world when it comes to wine, and one positive review can secure a wineries future and make a winemaker a fortune, while one disparaging, or even indifferent, review can be crushing to an independent winemaker. The scores bestowed upon countless wines in each of these issues carry immense weight and six times a year a sizeable portion of the wine community goes into atwitter over each and every score.

Which is exactly the problem. The focus is on the scores. A number either confirms success or rejects the efforts of a winemaker. This is a problem.

I’m going to try and address my concerns about wine scoring, and I hope I will be able to voice my objections to the scoring system while at the same time acknowledging the talents of most of the wine reviewers and the usefulness of their notes. Additionally, I acknowledge that I arrived late to the party and maybe I can’t fully appreciate how much the presence of major media publications putting out scores benefited the wine community.

However, the reality is right now the 100-point wine scale is having a major negative impact on wine. There are two major (and powerful) publications when it comes to wine scoring: The Wine Spectator and Robert Parker’s The Wine Advocate. To criticize The Wine Spectator these days has almost become a joke. The Spectator, which relies heavily on advertising dollars, has for years been accused of adjusting scores to reflect the level of marketing dollars it receives from a particular winery or importer. While I am not going to completely discount every single score that appears in the magazine I certainly feel that in many cases wines are unduly praised, while on much rarer occasions wines are punished because of agendas by the magazine. Simply put, I wouldn’t be comfortable putting much faith in the reviews of the Spectator and I feel many of their reviewers put more effort into advancing their own agenda than they do in offering an objective evaluation of the wines in question.

But my real complaint about the Spectator it is of very little use as an actual resource for consumers. A recent “shopping list” insert in a copy of the Spectator focused on White Burgundy and on California Pinot Noir. Now, my numbers might be a bit off here because I don’t have the insert right in front of me, but I’m close enough to get the point across. Of the White Burgundy recommendations, the first eleven were from Montrachet, Chevalier-Montrachet, Batard-Montrachet, or Corton-Charlemagne, and all were at least $150 a bottle. Additionally, finding these wines is a trick itself as production is microscopic and the high demand normally results in most—if not all—of it being sold before it even hits a retailer’s shelf.

What is even more ridiculous is the California Pinot report: as I recall, eight of the first nine wines were from either Kosta Browne or Marcassin. Both of these wines have waiting lists that are years long, and the availability at retailers or even upper-echelon restaurants is very scarce. If you can find one of these wines, you’re sure to be paying a very serious secondary market premium.

Finally, the list did include two “Collectible” recommendations: Chave Hermitage and Chave Hermitage Blanc. Just call your local retailer and tell them you want a couple bottles of each. I’m sure they’ll have no problem accommodating you, and they’ll probably be able to do it for only around $200 a bottle. There is a small section of “Best Buys” which lists wines priced at $20 or less—and strangely enough this section is normally very similar to the full-page adds you find in the magazine.

My point is the Spectator is of little value to the average wine buyer, even the one looking to find $50-$75 bottles. In my admittedly cynical opinion the Spectator’s main purpose is to reinforce the decision a small portion of the wine-buying public has made to purchase certain high-end trophy wines. The reality is not only would I not recommend the Spectator to someone looking to get into wine read, but in fact I would advise them to stay away from it (interestingly enough, the Spectator actually has developed into a pretty good food magazine and the restaurant and chef profiles and reports are normally quite good).

What interests me much more is the Advocate. Free of advertising and universally respected for a commitment to remaining financially independent, the Advocate is the most powerful force in the wine world today. Robert Parker and his team of reviewers release an issue every two months and each one is packed with hundreds of detailed reviews organized by winery. There is little dispute that each issue of the Advocate, which reads like a technical journal, offers a mountain of useful information. In fact, if the scores were left out altogether the Advocate would be the ultimate wine resource.

The problem is the scores, and perhaps more specifically the reviewers opinion of what a wine should be. Despite all the claims by Mr. Parker and his companions, they have a very specific idea about what they like in a wine and by scoring the wines they establish a system where wines not made in the style they prefer are punished and deemed to be of lesser quality. In the explanation of his scoring system that appears on the front page of every Advocate Parker states: “There are specific standards of quality that full-time wine professionals recognize, and there are benchmark wines against which others can be judged.” This may be the case, but Parker owes the readers more information. Specifically, we need to know what those standards of quality are, which wines are the benchmarks, and who has determined these things.

Simply put, Parker defines these as being the qualities and wines he personally fines enjoyable. Specifically this means elevated alcohol, slightly high residual sugar, powerful levels of French oak (especially in red wines), and most importantly massive levels of fruit extraction. In particular it is the level of fruit extraction that ruffles feathers. As Parker’s influence has grown, more and more wines have been tailored specifically to meet his tastes. In response to this, Parker has grown to demand higher and higher levels of fruit extraction, most noticeably evident in his renowned love for the cult California wines. In fact, many people now feel that by increasing the level of extraction you can overcome any other flaws—at least in the mind of Robert Parker.

What has recently raised my interest in this topic is a comment in the most recent issue of the Advocate where Parker offers the following when discussing Edmunds St. John:

I do not believe (owner and winemaker) Steve Edmunds, one of the pioneers of California’s Rhone Ranger movement, has made anything as good over recent years. …there also appears to be a deliberate attempt to make French-styled wines. Of course, California is not France, and therein may suggest the problem. if you want to make French wine, do it in France. Edmunds. St. John’s current releases all possess good aromatics, but… “where’s the beef?”

So it apparent that Parker is penalizing ESJ (Edmunds St. John) for working in a style that is not “correct” for California. But what if the wine still has the “specific standards of quality” required for a top-flight wine? Additionally, and I know I am not the first person to say this, but when will Parker start criticizing the people in Bordeaux who are doing everything they can to make their wines in the California style Parker favors? Perhaps most telling of all is the “where’s the beef?” comment, which more or less sums it all up: not enough fruit.

I’m not arguing that we get rid of everything Parker says. If you’re looking for an over-extracted, slightly out-of-balance fruit bomb then he is a wonderful resource. But if you have different tastes then you are going to be misguided plenty of times, and even if you do share in Parker’s preferences there is the very real possibility you will miss out on plenty of other styles you may enjoy just as much, or maybe even more. Parker is a useful resource—I just think he’s only one point of few and far too powerful.

One potential resolution to this problem would be for Parker to bring in some reviewers who were more interested in qualities other than fruit, such as finesse, balance, elegance, or expression. Unfortunately Parker has never once shown any interest in expanding the viewpoints of his publication or even asking these questions. The Advocate now has several different reviews, but Parker has surrounded himself with people who share his same tastes and reinforce the standing positions of the Advocate. Instead of exploring other viewpoints Parker has decided to insulate himself.

Sadly, there is little reason to think this will ever change. Anecdotally Parker is known for being very defensive and vocal whenever anyone questions his opinions. Simply put he is renowned for dismissing anyone who dares to disagree with his singular perspective. Over the years it has become increasingly clear that Parker believes he has unlocked the mystery of what makes a great wine and anyone who does not utilize his approach or share his opinion is wrong. Ironically, in many ways the opposite is true: Parker’s pallet has been “cracked” so to speak and the formula for making a wine that generates high scores is now well-known, and there are even wine consultants who are hired for the sole purpose of increasing a wine’s score in a publication.

The ideal response would not be to get rid of Parker. The man is very talented and devotes a massive amount of effort to his work. The objective descriptions of wines he offers in his tasting notes are uncannily accurate, and if you read a Parker note and it sounds like something you enjoy you probably will, regardless of the score. We don’t need to get rid of Parker—which just need some others out there to keep him honest.

What does that mean? Well, for starters more people could seek out Steven Tanzer’s publication, The International Wine Cellar. I think it would be great if Jancis Robinson, Hugh Johnson, and Tom Stevenson offered up regular reviews in a similar manner to Parker. Given the problems the Advocate has historically had evaluating Pinot Noir (know why? Because Pinot is a subtle grape that emphasizes complexity and doesn’t normally lend itself to blockbuster extraction), both in California and Burgundy, it would be great to have Clive Coates offer up an annual review of wines from these regions. My personal respect and admiration for Doug Frost means I would love to see him do a regular newsletter. If a variety of independent opinions and perspectives actually existed then the consumers could educate themselves and we would not have to worry about winemakers being penalized for disagreeing with one all-powerful opinion.

Of course, the easiest thing would just be if consumers stopped putting so much stock in the actual rating and started to actually read the reviews and look for the wines that sound appealing to them. Years ago Parker decided to include, and even emphasize, the numeric scores of the wines because it would help sell magazines. It’s too bad a few more people didn’t follow his lead at the time. Right now the Parker numbers are having a negative impact on wine, and I seriously doubt we will ever get rid of them. So the only option I see is to get a few more scores up there fighting with those of the Advocate for the spotlight.

Comments

[Thomas Matthews]

Sigh. Another blogger bashing Wine Spectator and the 100-point scale.

First, all Wine Spectator reviews are based on blind tastings. We cannot favor friends (or advertisers) or punish "enemies" because we don't know the producers (or the prices) when we rate the bottles. So our reviews are indeed "objective", in terms of guaranteeing a level playing field.

Second, it's true we try to review the top producers from any region or varietal (Chave from the Rhone, Kosta Browne from California Pinot Noir). But we go far beyond the benchmarks. James Laube tasted more than 500 California Pinot Noirs over the past year. One of his top values was the Castle Rock Sonoma County 2005 (86 points, $13); 30,000 cases were made. Neither Robert Parker nor Stephen Tanzer reviewed this extremely consumer-friendly wine.

Finally, Wine Spectator publishes extensive analyses of vintages in all the world's major wine regions. Profiles of established and improving vintners. Reports on technical, environmental and cultural issues around wine. Travel and dining stories. In sum, the whole life of wine. Parker and Tanzer publish collections of wine reviews. Which is truly more helpful to someone just beginning their engagement with wine?

I personally think the more wine writing, the better. I look for new voices, new perspectives, fresh contributions to the conversation. But there must be a reason that Wine Spectator, with more than 400,000 subscribers, and 2.2 million readers (according to independent research) has become the most widely-read source of information about wine. I wonder why people like "the borrowed penguin" feel it's so important to attack us?

Thomas Matthews
Executive editor
Wine Spectator