This is a project I’ve long planned to do, and Blaisdell brought it up to the forefront.
I will run a survey to determine community averages to create a Wine Berserkers vintage chart, but what I need to determine are the following, prior to creating the survey:
Which vintages? Should we go way back? I think few on the community have extensive experience with vintages back in the 60’s or 50’s or further…and how useful to the general public are vintage charts that go back that far?
What type of rating system? Now’s a good opportunity to come up with our own system, rather than using the 100-point (which really is only a 30-point or less) system, with all its inherent flaws. What’s a new system we can use that makes sense to the whole world? Grades? (A, A-, B, etc)
Been wanting to do/see this for a long, long time. Thanks for starting the conversation that I know many must have had with themselves at one point or another. I’ll need to chew on your criteria, but you’ve got the wheels turning.
I think there is great value in a community average, rather than one person’s opinion, and I plan to promote it widely that this is an average taken from (quantity) wine geeks - I’m guessing it will have some validity as a result.
If a vintage + region has few ratings or ratings on only a few wines can you really use community averages (I’m assuming community here means CT basically)?
What’s the measure of a vintage? How most wines performed? How the best wines performed? If one vintage has 100 TNs with scores and another has 13 TNs with scores can you really make any valid comparison? Does the latter even have enough samples to be useful? David wants to overlay “QPR” but the raw ratio is skewed (it will favor low-priced wines) so…
How do you rationalize/correct for the fact that people mean very different things by te same scores? For some, 87 is a solid Very Good wine. For others, anything below 90 is plonk.
Why should the TN of someone inexperienced in a region carry the same weight as that of someone who knows the region well? Some of this might be mitigated if the latter is writing far more notes on wines from the region, but still…
IS there enough variation between scores that you can show meaningful differences? CT scores tend to clump between 85 and 95 with most scores I see between 87 or so and 93 or so. Is there really a meaningful difference between a vintage with an average score of 92 and one with a score of 90.5? If the score average are shown raw (not translated into a 5 star rating, etc) do we end up with a vintage chart that shows every vintage between 87 and 93?
FWIW, I’d use a 10 point scale, and use all the points.
First get a consensus on both the worst and the best vintages and give them a 1 and a 10 respectively, and work from there.
I think that the Wine Berserkers sample set is more discriminating than the average Cellartracker contributor, and those inclined to take part in a vintage rating project are going to be even more experienced.
I’d give a Berserkers rating more credibility than the major publications.
Please see question two above…I have NO interest in a 100-point system for this vintage chart, as it is quite flawed for reasons you point out and many more.
No - this would be a survey I put together, and the community would vote on each vintage (as they know to - there will be instructions to abstain from voting on vintages one knows little about), based on whatever rating system we come up with, but it won’t be 100-point system.
At least in France the price of wines tends to fluctuate with vintage alleged quality.
I’m reproducing here my post in the Wine 101 forum. I don’t necessarily want to be a Debbie Downer, but I think it shows why I think no serious wine-related website should use vintage charts…
Not sure if Zach (or anybody else) wants to spend time on this, but I certainly wouldn’t: especially in the case of people discovering wines, I find vintage charts to be extremely counter-productive, especially these days when truly awful vintages are extremely rare.
In most cases vintage charts will point to a few vintages when quality was perceived as particularly good by wine critics, which often translates to wines that are particularly difficult to drink/appreciate when young (therefore potentially slowing the learning process). Furthermore all the high rating vintages tend to have the same profile, therefore (since they are more likely to be chased) hiding other vintages which can be as good but will display other characteristics, perhaps more to the liking of a specific wine lover. Finally, critics have been known to make (enormous) mistakes when appraising a vintage (1993 in Burgundy is a perfect example, and more recently 2001 to a lesser extent).
I used vintage charts when I started discovering wine, and the only thing they taught me was that they artificially restricted the universe of wines I was supposed to enjoy.
I think it would be really useful to have an actual description of the vintage characteristics incorporated into the vintage chart. For example, '08 Burgundy could be described as a classic, restrained vintage while '09 can be described as richer and more opulent. Both are considered good to great vintages, but for very different reasons, and I don’t think a simple letter grade will be able to communicate that.
That is my problem with vintage charts in general. While the 100 point scale is very problematic, even a letter grade or a ten point scale can’t explain why a vintage is great to some people and not so great for others.
I disagree, Guillaume, primarily because this chart would be a collective effort, with combined experiences over many years and a broad array of styles and tastes, not just one person. Also, it’s meant to be used not as much by the ‘prosumer’ wine drinker (although I know I will plan to use it for vintages I don’t know about - I trust this community FAR more than Laube or Parker, personally), but more for those who are, like you did, wanting to learn more, and take the assistance of hopefully thousands of experienced wine enthusiasts to help guide them.
Good idea, but difficult to put together. Who, for example, would write this? Would it require a committee of sorts to assemble a mutually agreed upon statement?
Yeah, that is the rub. I hate to volunteer others, but maybe some members of this board who have extensive expertise on a particular type of wine can get together and write a draft version of the description (this shouldn’t be too hard with Burgundy considering the number of passionate followers who post here). Then post the draft on a sticky thread and have it reviewed by the community at large who can propose edits in the thread.
I can see this method being an editorial nightmare though…
Very good points. If we are reaching some sort of consensus then I would assume that would be more than people throwing numbers at a wall. Along with that there could be some sort of note for the overall character gleaned from the discussions.
A huge issue to be tackled is how to break down various regions also. When I used vintage charts I was often frustrated by the lack of breakdown in some regions especially California. Not only regionally but in regards to varieties.
You could come up with a dozen or two general descriptions such as “ripe,” “structured,” “austere,” etc., ask people to check 5 for each vintage, and then list the top 5 vote-getters for each year.
A couple of thoughts. Suggest going as far back as possible in time 60’s, 50’s and beyond, why not? Just qualify the data with additional detail (min, max, mean, median, std deviation, sample size, etc. as an * to the chart). A number based rating would be best for this reason. Think carefully about the break down of a region to a reasonable level where it is meaningful, not too big, not too small. Finally, guess I would question, is the rating based on how the vintage is perceived right now, or as it has been generally accepted? Drinking window? Like the idea of a good set of vintage charts.
Todd even given all the problems with vintage charts, I think this is a great idea.
I think you absolutely need something like this. The quality of a vintage is more than can be described in a single dimension. e.g. compare CdP '04 vs. '05, both IMO good to great vintages, the former approachable and fruit-forward, the other tannic and backwards. Which also raises the point of readiness to drink (which itself is of course subjective).
I can see really 3 recommendations to go with a vintage - a score for overall quality, something that rates the vintage in general terms of its tannin/acidity/fruit profile, and also a hold - drink/hold - drink up recommendation. Something like 95-T-H (tannic/hold) for '05 CdP.
Also, maybe a list of top performers, especially in off years.