The Bottom 100?

Okay, we're seeing different people's versions of the "Top 100" and the "Best of 2010" and such.

It's about time to inject a little bit of Grinch into the ho ho holiday season!

What are the major disappointments or under-performers of the year for you?

Which wines were clearly not worth the money you spent, or which wines simply did not live up to whatever expectations you had of them?

Any category, from the humble fighting varietals that didn't put up much of a fight to the exalted and deified that weren't once they got in your mouth.

What were the wines of your Bottom 100?

As Santa would put it - Ho, ho, ho......

Should I publish a list like that I would find myself in court with at least 50 wineries. I don't mind being sued once in a while (I have never lost a case yet), but 50 at once and with a list like that they would probably each walk away with a goodly sum of the cash of my publisher.

Goodluck and god speed. Non-pros can publish such lists with no fear of retaliation so long as you state something to the effect that "these were the wines I found most wanting/not to my taste during the past year". In that you're stating opinion and no-one can fault you for that. Just don't state it as fact (e.g. "these are the x worst wines of the year")

By the way, I'm sure Santa has a good lawyer on retainer......think of all those people who would sue him for damaging either their roofs or their chimneys.

Best
Rogov

[David M. Bueker]

The most disappointing wines I drank in 2010?

Let's narrow the list to just one: 2004 Roederer Cristal

It was so underwhelming (tasted twice, from 2 different bottles) that I cannot imagine how they released it with a straight face.

Ooh, fun.

Easy winner is the fake 1983 Ch. Lafite. The most depressing wine I have ever encountered.

For sheer screwed-up-ness, the 2007 Frank Cornelissen Etna Rosso MAGMA takes the cake. More like a biological experiment than a wine. What seemed like a bit of residual sugar, noticeable alcohol and volatility, zero sulfur and flavours that were equal parts candy and sewage. There were points when it was drinkable and interesting, but as a wine - ugh.

Notable painful flawed wines were a 1983 JJ Prum Bernkasteler Badstube Riesling Auslese that I pulled a few weeks ago for a very good friend, a heat damaged bottle of 1998 Donnhoff Oberhauser Brucke Auslese and lightly corked 1995 Mascarello Barolo Monprivato.

Genuinely bad wines... 1997 Glaetzer Shiraz, though I opened it expecting it to be a god-awful mess of wood and cinders and it lived down to my expectations. 2003 Alban Reva and 2004 Lascombes were memorably atrocious (though I did not approach either with high expectations either - but both were far worse than I feared).

Bad buying decisions... easily won by the 2008 Keller Kirchspiel Riesling Grosses Gewachs, which was incurably boring, monotonic and a waste of money.

Bad buying decisions... easily won by the 2008 Keller Kirchspiel Riesling Grosses Gewachs, which was incurably boring, monotonic and a waste of money.

Ouch! I hope the Auslese is better, as I bought that.

I'm glad to say most of my disappointments were bad bottles and not bad wines per se. The most glaring ones were a bunch of 1996 Rostaing: two bottles of Cote Blonde and one bottle of La Landonne (or was that the other way around?) and all faulted in one way or another. I think I only opened two of them in 2010, though, but they are still the low point of the year, wine-wise, not only deeply disappointing myself and all my friends, but tarnishing my reputation, the general reaction each time being: "just how many of these 96 duds did you buy?"

I don't know if these are truly the most disappointing (perhaps I've blocked something else out in my mind) but two that come to mind are the 04 Bea Arboreus and the 06 Kiralyudvar Sec. Two very different wines and price levels. The Arboreus stands out because it seemed way over-priced and (thankfully for my wallet) made me realize the Santa Chiara is much better value. The Kiralyudvar was disappointing because it was cheap and I was hoping for a winner to stock up on. But it didn't appeal.

The only wine we had this year that did not measure up to expectations was corked! Yes, only one corked wine this year.

I had a couple of bad bottles this year, including (to my dismay) a '98 Leoville Las Cases that was totally undrinkable. I took it to a restaurant to help celebrate my 70th birthday. When the headwaiter opened it, he wrinkled his nose. It wasn't corked, just bad. <sigh> I bought a bottle from the wine list to replace it, which was a very decent village Bordeaux.

Here's the bottle that sticks in my mind, though. Cheap wine shouldn't be BAD. I drink a lot of cheap wine, and mostly it's at least enjoyable.
Chile, Casablanca Valley, Montgras Reserva Sauv. Blanc 2008 $9.49 13.5% alcohol
Yeah, it's SB but has an unpleasant metallic taste that doesn't go away. Short finish. Not really worth the modest money.

John

Recent vintages of the P Sirah from Parducci, what is going on there? Gallo?

Wonder when Otto will show up here?!

I've been quite lucky this year. No real horrors that I recall. Here are a few that I hoped to like more than I did.

- Leeuwin Margaret River Cabernet-Merlot 1999 - Soggy and cloying
- Cahors Prince Probus 1995 - TN earlier this week - much leaner and meaner than bottle 3 years ago
- Esclans pink costing €80 - Ridiculously pretentious and spoilt by wood for its role as a millionaire's quaff
- A couple of up-market Spanish Garnachas - Alto Moncayo, Campo de Borja Aquilon 2008 & Bodega Atteca, Catalayud Anas 2006 - Muscle bound, confected and woody (recent TN in Spain Wine Focus)
- Bierzo Villa de Corullon 2006 Palacios was opened during a closed period and was much less expressive than last year


Three years ago two of my festive wines were much worse disappointments -
- Ponsot Griotte-Chambertin 1997 - Lean and mean
- Châteauneuf du Pape Cuvée du Papet 1990 - Cheesy and rancid

Biggest disappointment was a Louis Jadot 1990 Bonnes Mares I opened for Thanksgiving. It was corked.

-Paul W.

Forgot to mention the `05 Leon Beyer Riesling Reserve. A very poor effort.
Dale has just posted on an `07....C/C plus.

As Santa would put it - Ho, ho, ho......

Should I publish a list like that I would find myself in court with at least 50 wineries. I don't mind being sued once in a while (I have never lost a case yet), but 50 at once and with a list like that they would probably each walk away with a goodly sum of the cash of my publisher.


Best
Rogov

Rogov -

This is interesting, given that film critics and such seem to have no issues with putting together lists of the worst films of the year (not to mention the worst films of all time). I'm not sure, but it seems to me that I've seen lists of "worst restaurants of the year" as well. Is there a difference between how wine critics are treated vs. other critics?

Mike, Hi...

Low scores and negative comments are acceptable within general reviews or in columns devoted to a specific winery because such reportage and interpretation is considered part of the critic's role. On the other hand, publishing a list specifically devoted to "the worst wines I tasted during the past year", no matter how professionally presented would be perceived as being composed primarily for sensational value. Which of course is quite true for why else would one publish such a list. Publishing for sensational goals might very well be seen as intentionally setting out to harm the wineries involved and that of course is cause for civil action.

Lists of "worst movies" and the like are generally meant and perceived as having a more humorous side and thus less potentially harmful impact. Restaurants are more tricky and that is one of the reasons why European critics avoid "worst restaurant lists".

Best
Rogov

2001 Marquis Phillips S9. Horrid.

Bernard, I wonder if I have a bottle of that lurking around. I know I still have some Marquis Phillips Shiraz and Sarah's Blend (I liked the Sarah's Blend initially but it got oakier every year until I stopped purchasing.)

2001 Marquis Phillips S9. Horrid.

Returning for a moment to the "legal question". A review written precisely as this is perfectly acceptable by a non-professional but would cause a professional critic and his publisher a good deal of money in court. The reason - stating "horrid" as a fact is impossible to prove. Only if it is stated clearly as an opinion (that is to say, "in my professional opinion, horrid" does it become acceptable from the legal point of view.

Best
Rogov

Robert Parker used to have a fine turn of phrase for really bad wines when he started out, before he became famous and worth suing. My favorite was for a wine he rated 52: "The vinous equivalent of Liquid Plumber". I had the misfortune of tasting that wine, and if I ever meet Parker again I want to ask him why he awarded it the extra two points beyond the minimum score of 50. I suppose it was because it was red, and not actually poisonous.

-Paul W.

Has anyone ever heard of a winery suing a critic for a poor review of a wine? I certainly am familiar with the Parker/Faiveley case, but that was for libel for the insinuation that wines exported were different than those available for tasting at winery.
I know it made worldwide news when an Australian critic was sued by a failed restaurant (critic and newspaper eventually prevailed).
Certainly libel laws vary greatly from country to country, but one would think that in any culture where criticism was permissable, some of it would be negative.

Back to subject- leaving aside corked bottles and obviously cooked bottles, some recent disappointments would include a 1996 Clos Ste Hune sliding into premox, a 67 Oddero that showed old, a terrible bottle of 85 Pepe MdA (but they're so variable), a dull 90 La Chapelle.

Not the same as what you were talking about, Dale, in that the lawsuit was generated to identify a commenter to a blog post by W. Blake Gray on his blog where he panned the wines of K Vintners. Taylor Eason explains it pretty well here on his blog:

http://www.tayloreason.com/corkscrew/news/wine_news/k-vintners-and-charles-smith-libel-lawsuit-moves-forward/

Yes, I knew about that. But again, Smith didn't sue because of bad reviews, but to reveal the names of the anonymous commentators who he claimed libeled him by saying he wasn't the actual winemaker (not because they said his wines were poor). Interesting case- as a longtime netizen, while I understand the long history of support for anonymity, I also realize what mischief/harm can be done by those hiding behind it (one reason I like the real names policy here).

I've just never heard of a winery, restaurant, producers of a film or play, artist, etc suing for a negative opinion (save the Australian case) in any country. That's why the Australian case was reported in worldwide papers. As lawsuits are public record, one would draw more attention to the negative review from the lawsuit than the actual review.

You know, as I write this, I'm remembering there was also a Philadelphia restaurant critic sued- they said he didn't have the dish he said he ordered? Will research tomorrow.

A couple of disappointing wines that I expected would be better than they were, excluding corked/obviously defective bottles:

1995 Castell’in Villa Chianti Classico DOCG Riserva (already fading)
1997 Kalin Cellars Sauvignon Blanc Reserve Potter Valley (didn't get this at all; is releasing a dry California SB so late really such a great idea?)

Dale:

There's this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/dining/07lega.html


And here, specifically in paragraph six:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/dining/07lega.html

Dale, Hi...

Indeed no-one sues for a bad review per se but some do sue for libel, claiming that the critic had set out to damage their reputation for reasons other than professional. In several cases in Europe and Israel (I cannot speak for the USA) suits were based on the use of what some might consider foul language. Those cases were lost, the defense being that the columns in question were representative of "nouveau journlism", a style perhaps not acceptable to all but so long as the columns were written in "full heart" and "without malice" not going over the line

In several other cases, an overall record of bad reviews wound up with the paintiff claiming that there was political or social motivation to the reviews. In each case that I know of there were one of two results: (a) an out-of-court settlement or (b) the judge's dismissal of the suits as frivolous.

In several cases in which the plaintiff was successful and libel was truly present, settlements were made by court-appointed referees.

More serious for the critic are those "lawyer letters" threatening to sue. In each case legal fees are incurred as responses must be prepared even before the case goes to court. And those are fairly common. That's why newspaper, book and magazine publishers have lawyers on retainer.

Because most of these cases are sensitive, they are not talked about that much. Many of my readers in Israel know quite well which wineries are either suing or threatening to sue me on a fairly regular basis.

Best
Rogov