Galloni recently posted a TN for the 2016 Poggio Scalette Piantonaia and gave it 50 points saying the wine was undrinkable and should never have been released.
I wondered how often Galloni has handed out a 50 point score, so I did a search: in all his years of reviewing he’s given four 70 point scores and four 60 point scores, but this is his one and only 50 pointer.
That made me wonder why he even scored it.
At dinner this week a few friends whose palates I trust said that they tasted the 2016 at the winery and thought it was excellent. Which for me casts some doubt on Galloni’s credibility. Did he have a bad tasting day? But if it was an off day for him, you’d think with all his experience he’d recognize it for what it was and either retaste at a later date or not write a review at all.
And if the wine was truly that flawed - which I find hard to believe - why not give it a NR score, as he has done many times in the past? Giving it a 50 - the lowest score possible - seems petty and vindictive.
In reading the reviews, Galloni thought all of the 2016 wines from Poggio Scalette were less impressive than usual. I think tasting the wine from bottle twice is giving it a fair shot and I’m glad to see he posted the review and score that he felt was appropriate. If he thought both bottles were flawed and deemed them undrinkable, a score of 50 seems reasonable to me. There’s a lot of talk about how scores are artificially compressed to a 12 or 15 point range. I’d like to see more reviews outside of that range, if the wines truly are disappointing. No reason to hide those by avoiding a score or, worse, posting no review.
I tasted the same wine about a month ago and found it too ripe and syrupy, and said so in my review. My score (to be published on Sept. 12) is more optimistic however.
Interesting question and quite a dilemma for the reviewer. When a reviewer includes one, this question gets asked. When they publish only reviews of wines they recommend, they are accused of having a Lake Wobegon palate. RMP published very low scores in the old days, but in more recent decades said he would use TWA to recommend wines ppl should buy, not “waste space” warning them off those they shouldn’t. I can see both perspectives.
It was inculcated in me since day one as a professional, clients need to know the bad news as well. If I subscribe to a critic, I want the good, the bad and the ugly. For all you know, it is a regular producer that you adore, and regularly buy, but they had a poor performance in one specific year. I would want to know.
I’m not saying he shouldn’t review it. I’m suggesting he shouldn’t score it. This is the only time he has scored anything less than 60 points. Is the 2016 Piantonaia the worst wine he’s ever tasted?
I still don’t get it, why not? What if it had been the 2015 Benetiere that Yaacov had (see the long thread below)? Don’t raise an alarm bell? Buyer beware? Undermines the very purpose of the critics’ service and value.
PS. For the record, I do not subscribe to Galloni and am not a fan at all.
I suppose I agree. A Parker score could actually ruin a winery. Nobody today has that kind of clout, so why not score a wine really low if you think that’s what it deserves?
It would be interesting to know if there is more to the story though. Certainly that can’t have been the worst wine he tasted all year, unless he’s really fortunate. We don’t know if there was some kind of connection or disagreement or whatever or whether it was just a simple and honest review. He gave the 2015 94 points.
But I got curious so I looked up some other reviews.
Monica said she didn’t find it so offensive. Neither did Kerin O’Keefe, who wrote:
Poggio Scalette 2016 Piantonaia Merlot (Alta Valle della Greve)
“Here’s a Merlot that opens with aromas of dark-skinned berry, bay leaf and baking spice. The chewy, medium-bodied palate offers blackberry jam, vanilla and mocha alongside velvety tannins.”
89
Even better, here’s Wine Spectator:
Piantonaia 2016
“Jammy, with black cherry fruit allied to a thick, juicy texture. The tannins add a little burr as this finishes up, along with earth and spice accents. There’s no denying the exuberant fruit. Drink now through 2024”.
90
As an aside, we used to do a tasting occasionally where we’d take twelve wines from the same vintage with at least an eight point difference between WS and WA. This would be a good candidate.
I would hope based on too ripe and syrupy it stayed below 80.
I am glad Galloni posted it, if he hadn’t and I’d bought that as birth year wine for my kiddo and tasted wine he and Monica both saw as a flawed or questionable wine and then later said he didn’t want to post the 50, then what kind of consumer advocate is he? Everyone needs to call them as they taste them and post their opinion, it’s the job of a critic who wants my $.
Not just in the last year. 50 points is the lowest score (by a 10 point margin) given by any reviewer on Vinous in their entire review archive.
In the 100 pt system, 50 points is the default base score every wine is given prior to the start of the tasting. Which implies that Galloni found nothing positive about the wine. Not the colour, not the nose, not the palate. Nothing redeeming whatsoever.
I don’t want to encourage copyright infringement, but can someone illuminate what he stated in his review rating than just calling it undrinkable and probably never should have been released? I’m really curious to hear his other descriptors.
And Monica, did you try a single bottle or two? Did you taste at the winery or in your own tasting setting? And not knowing this producer, the indication is that these wines are usually not overly ripe and usually contain decent acidity so as not to be syruppy?
Has there been a change in winemaker or consultant recently?
Really fascinated - and as others have said, wondering if there’s more to it than the specific wine in question.
I agree with Andrew. Giving the wine any score below 80 with the same tasting note would have conveyed the same information about the wine. Giving the wine a 50 is simply a thumb in the eye of the producer and indicates to me that something else is going on.
An extraordinary wine of profound and complex character displaying all the attributes expected of a classic wine of its variety. Wines of this caliber are worth a special effort to find, purchase, and consume.
90 - 95:
An outstanding wine of exceptional complexity and character. In short, these are terrific wines.
80 - 89:
A barely above average to very good wine displaying various degrees of finesse and flavor as well as character with no noticeable flaws.
70 - 79:
An average wine with little distinction except that it is a soundly made. In essence, a straightforward, innocuous wine.
60 - 69:
A below average wine containing noticeable deficiencies, such as excessive acidity and/or tannin, an absence of flavor, or possibly dirty aromas or flavors.
50 - 59:
A wine deemed to be unacceptable.
If Galloni found the wine undrinkable, 50-59 was proper.
An extraordinary wine of profound and complex character displaying all the attributes expected of a classic wine of its variety. Wines of this caliber are worth a special effort to find, purchase, and consume.
90 - 95:
An outstanding wine of exceptional complexity and character. In short, these are terrific wines.
80 - 89:
A barely above average to very good wine displaying various degrees of finesse and flavor as well as character with no noticeable flaws.
70 - 79:
An average wine with little distinction except that it is a soundly made. In essence, a straightforward, innocuous wine.
60 - 69:
A below average wine containing noticeable deficiencies, such as excessive acidity and/or tannin, an absence of flavor, or possibly dirty aromas or flavors.
50 - 59:
A wine deemed to be unacceptable.
That’s really putting form over substance. As Andrew’s original post pointed out, this is the ONLY 50 point score he’s ever given. By your logic that means this is the first wine he’s tasted and found to be unsound. I call bullshit and stand by my original conclusion. In the real world, a 50 point score is about something other than the quality of the wine.
Galloni said nothing other than that it was flawed to the point of being undrinkable, and based on the two bottles he tasted it should never have been released. End of review.
Vittorio Fiore has been the owner and winemaker since 1991. His son Jurij initially assisted but I believe has been the principal winemaker for quite few years. Vittorio has also acted as a consultant at places such as Costanti.
Their Il Carbonaione is a consistently beautiful Sangiovese. The other vintages of Piantonaia I’ve tasted have been stately, restrained and deeply complex. It’s hard for me to imagine Scalette producing a ripe and jammy wine, but I suppose anything is possible.