The Importance of Wine Ratings and Vintages

I understand that any Wine Rating can be very subjective. In our store, I always tell customers, it can be used as a guide, but dont try to purchase wines based soley on wine reviews.
Too many people come in looking for the 90+ point wines. I've told them that at 90point to one person may be a 70point to someone else.

Sometimes that goes for vintages also. No, I dont even want to suggest that I do not follow or believe in the value of Vintages for all types of wines. Some, the vintage year is much more important. I have found that some of the big name producers (ie Kendall Jackson, Robert Mondavi, BV ) put together consistent wines year after year, really doesn't matter what kind of
year it was for the wines. (That applies to their entry level wines, not their higher ends).

I just find that some people use vintage years like wine reviews. They want a Wine that has to have a 92 or greater and it had to be from 2005 (The actual wine/country/etc) really is not important for this statement)

I am curious, not so much for the pure wine experts here, but for those involved in any retail environment, how you find the impacts of Wine Ratings and Vintage Years when it comes to the consumer?

Vintages are as much dependent on the grape variety as they are the year. For example, in my area Pinot Noir may be ripening in mid September while Cabernet Franc ripens in mid to late October. One could easily imagine a year with clouds and rain during late August to mid September, making the PN crop thin and acidic and susceptible to rotting, then the sun coming out and nothing but sunshine for late September and October, allowing the CF to ripen nicely. Or vice versa. Some varieties (most notably hybrids around here) produce fairly consistent crops, year after year without a lot of variation, regardless of the weather.

Ron, Hi....

As might be said, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Both scores and vintage ratings have their use if and when used wisely.

Vintage ratings are indeed generalizations and generalizations do have their place (as when Charles Dickens noted that "there is not a window in all of Paris that closes correctly"). Vintage ratings, let's say for all of France or all of Italy are useless of course. When broken down into various areas (e.g. Northern Rhone, Southern Rhone; Chablis; right bank Bordeaux, left bank Bordeaux) they do give an overall hint as to the quality of the wines from the region. A hint...not written on Sinai of course because in any vintage some wines will over-perform and others under-perform.

With regard to scores, more controversial for sure but as often I remind my own readers, scores are nothing more than two or occasionally three digits at the end of a tasting note. What the score gives is the overall impression of what a particular critic thinks of that wine. It says nothing about whether you will enjoy the wine, for that information should be gleaned from the tasting note. It does, however, give a guide to those who are familiar with (have followed) that particular critic over time to determine whether his/her tasting notes give valid direction to your own palate.

Best
Rogov

[Jenise]

I just find that some people use vintage years like wine reviews. They want a Wine that has to have a 92 or greater and it had to be from 2005 (The actual wine/country/etc) really is not important for this statement)

The average consumer just wants quality and value and has no other means of determining that.

I'm not in retail myself but often end up hand-selling wines to other customers when I'm shopping and the wine consultant's not around, and I usually reccomend wines I've enjoyed myself. Ratings often get discussed because the shelf talkers reveal the wine I'm reccomending to be 89 pts where the one next door to it is, say, 90 or 91. I firmly believe that what helps consumers (and makes them smarter wine shoppers, which helps us all) is not to suggest that ratings are unreliable with disparities like 20 pts that you cite--after all, in another instance a good rating might support your reccomendation--is to learn that a wine rating is merely a snapshot of a wine at a moment in time.

When I am working with a customer, I want to hear what their interests are, what they are looking for..... And if it happens we have a type of that wine in our tasting section, that is a plus, because I can better judge their tastes.

I steer people in the direction they want, but with also the wines that I recommend. I only recommend wines that I have tasted and tried. So, that is a whole lot of tasting, which we do, every night after closing, plus some earlier. I also have zero problem telling a customer I have never tasted XYZ, so I can't be for sure, but based on the Vineyard, the Winemaker, the Area, etc (for example) I will give you an rough idea of what to expect.

Nothing disturbs me more is when a retail wine salesman 'lies' to the customer by saying this is how such and such a wine tasted because they had it, even though they never tasted it OR because it is a wine that a store may have an abundance of or purchased at a good price and want to unload it.

I think that after working on/off in both the Wine Wholesale and Retail business since the 1970's, I honestly believe that the educated customer is what the retailer is after. Now how does that happen? Well, some might self educate themselves, the rest, depend on honest retailers.... And since I dont have any financial ties with the store, I can be 100% honest in everything I discuss about Wines, Beers and any beverage

Forgive me for what some may perceive as self promotion, but valid recommendations can also come from critics. Let us not discount the role of the critic in any human endeavor. After all, critics place themselves in that role because they are passionate about the field to which their criticism is aimed. The trick on the part of the consumer is (as I said earlier) to determine which critic/s give valid direction to their own palate.

One might also say that many critics perceive part of their role as educational. Please, let us not unnecessarily discount that role.

Best
Rogov

I guess they are important to people who like numbers. Those who place too much emphasis on them are no different to people who place too much emphasis on grape variety or appellations.

I find it annoying when someone comes to my winery in the Roussillon and starts making judgements on my wines based on some expert's rating of the vintage in Bordeaux.

But at the end of the day, we all need some pieces of information to help us decide which wines to buy. Wine is confusing. It is often misrepresented by those selling it. A number gives the consumer something tangible, even if it is based on generalisations and personal opinions.

[David M. Bueker]

I find it annoying when someone comes to my winery in the Roussillon and starts making judgements on my wines based on some expert's rating of the vintage in Bordeaux.

This sort of thing even trips up some who should know better. The Burghound (Allen Meadows) when commenting on how fantastic 2002 was for Burgundy, opined that "for most of France it was a disaster." I know that there were some horrible storms in the south, especially the Rhone, but 2002 is an amazing year for the Loire & Champagne, very fine in Alsace, and a good, classic vintage in Bordeaux. That's just the regions I know that did not have a disaster of a vintage.

I tend to agree with Howie and David, when it comes to vintage. Vintage is dependent upon grape variety (and the style or type of wine that is being produced). Even though one can make a certain “generalization” about a vintage for a given “region”, there could always be a “pocket” here or there (within that region) that “generalization” just doesn’t seem to apply for some reason or another.

Salute

[David M. Bueker]

What I have never seen on a vintage chart is what the rating is supposed to mean. Is it the quality of the average wine of the scored region? Is it the quality of the top wines of that region? Is it the hat size of the reviewer?

I'm not in retail myself but often end up hand-selling wines to other customers when I'm shopping and the wine consultant's not around

Aha--stealth selling! I wonder how many of us engage in this practice. The reaction of the other consumer can be interesting--some seem pleased, others are downright suspicious.

What I have never seen on a vintage chart is what the rating is supposed to mean. Is it the quality of the average wine of the scored region? Is it the quality of the top wines of that region? Is it the hat size of the reviewer?

David,

I don't think vintage charts are ever really intended to be that precise. I also think it depends on who's chart it is. With Parker, for example, you just have to believe he's only talking about the wines he reviews. So, for example, in Bordeaux the vintage chart is most likely an average of the wines he reviews (largely Classed Growth Bordeaux and equivalents). Its not the quality of the First Growths only. Vintage charts may make wine geeks uncomfortable but they are probably useful to someone who is interested in buying some nice wines but has not reached geek status.

in some cases i actually find myself liking the wines of lower rated vintages better than higher rated ones. this is certainly true of 2008 in the southern rhone. i have like most of them better than either 2007 or 2009. recently tasted pignan, rayas and feraud brunel were downright bad, IMO. whereas telegraph '08 was superb and classic. the same can be said for higher rated wines. i also tasted a lovely NSG from Perrot-Minot. then i tasted its twice as expensive brother - old vines, more oak. hard to love even if the price had been the same. surely the more expensive one would have been rated higher by parker and others. so, i often tend to use vintage and ratings by turning them on their heads, so to speak.

[David M. Bueker]

David,

A couple of things. First you are start by discussing vintage, but your punch line is about a specific wine. Rating of wines and rating of overall vintages are two very distinct things.

As for preferring less heralded vintages - in the age of global warming that makes a lot of sense. Go back 20 years (sometimes less), and it wasn't quite as good a strategy.

Go back 20 years (sometimes less), and it wasn't quite as good a strategy.

It was a great strategy for buying '80s Bordeaux. For example, you could often get great '83s and '85s for significantly less than '82s and '86s.

[David M. Bueker]

Go back 20 years (sometimes less), and it wasn't quite as good a strategy.

It was a great strategy for buying '80s Bordeaux. For example, you could often get great '83s and '85s for significantly less than '82s and '86s.

True - but not so great for the '84s and '87s.

Go back 20 years (sometimes less), and it wasn't quite as good a strategy.

It was a great strategy for buying '80s Bordeaux. For example, you could often get great '83s and '85s for significantly less than '82s and '86s.

True - but not so great for the '84s and '87s.

Not sure. I bought some '87 Haut Brion for dirt cheap (in the $40s) that was pretty tasty. Again, just makes the point that vintage charts are really rough guides.