AG: 2016 And 2017 Barbaresco And Point Inflation

[Michael S. Monie]

https://vinous.com/articles/barbaresco- ... s-nov-2019

[Tom Taylor]

Don’t get your point, no pun intended. 2016 is widely regarded as a great vintage in Piedmont. He has given out one 100 point score that I can see, which is not unlike 2013 or 2010. I don’t see point inflation here

[Joe W i n o g r a d]

The article makes a point about the problem of point inflation.

[Sc0tt F!tzger@ld]

It’s not AG inflating points. It’s all the newbs out there who just got into these wines and never travel the region. His point is buyer beware of the fly by critic.

[ybarselah]

"More recently, the wine reviewing world has become populated by tasters who award wines absurdly high scores that those wines have no chance of ever actually living up to."

is this one of those statements that sounds true, but really cannot be verified because it's so vague and open-ended?

[Tom Taylor]

The article makes a point about the problem of point inflation.

Got it

[Nathan Smyth]

"More recently, the wine reviewing world has become populated by tasters who award wines absurdly high scores that those wines have no chance of ever actually living up to."

is this one of those statements that sounds true, but really cannot be verified because it's so vague and open-ended?

(ITB)

Or maybe it's one of those statements that hits just a little too close to home?

[Nathan Smyth]

Back in the day, when you could still cross paths with legit 96- to 98-point wines in the general vicinity of $150, I felt like I could give valid scores to wines.

But in the last few years, as those wines soared to prices like $1500 or even $15,000, it started to dawn on me that I have no business whatsoever assigning scores to wines anymore, simply because I don't socialize in them zip codes no mo'.

Ergo I can try to imagine how a 98-point $15,000 Musigny might smell or taste, but it ain't never gonna get anywhere near muh nostrils [much less actually enter muh mouf].

[Nathan Smyth]

A little off-topic, but the guys at Cellar Tracker are TOUGH SCORERS.

If you can find a wine there with 20 or 30 unique tasters [and not just two or three guys each posting ten different tasting notes on the same wine], and if those 20 or 30 unique tasters are converging on a score of about 94 points, then you're dealing with a world-class wine.

The same might be true of Vivino, but Vivino is much more difficult for me to suss out - I don't have a strong visceral sense of the difference between 4.3 vs 4.5 vs 4.7 vs 4.9 at Vivino.

[And because tards can do Vivino on their tardphone apps, the barrier to entry is much, much lower.]

[Pat Martin]

94 points is a world class wine.

[Mattstolz]

A little off-topic, but the guys at Cellar Tracker are TOUGH SCORERS.

If you can find a wine there with 20 or 30 unique tasters [and not just two or three guys each posting ten different tasting notes on the same wine], and if those 20 or 30 unique tasters are converging on a score of about 94 points, then you're dealing with a world-class wine.

The same might be true of Vivino, but Vivino is much more difficult for me to suss out - I don't have a strong visceral sense of the difference between 4.3 vs 4.5 vs 4.7 vs 4.9 at Vivino.

[And because tards can do Vivino on their tardphone apps, the barrier to entry is much, much lower.]

its really true. a wine on CT with several unique tasters thats over a 91 is a very solid wine most times. I've also found this really varies by wine region fans too. a 92 point Burgundy on CT will likely be one of the best wines I've ever had in my life. a 94 point cali cab... maybe the best wine you have in that two week period.

[MikeHill]

The same might be true of Vivino, but Vivino is much more difficult for me to suss out - I don't have a strong visceral sense of the difference between 4.3 vs 4.5 vs 4.7 vs 4.9 at Vivino.

More thread drift, but I had the same questions about Vivino ratings.

[Sh@n A]

A little off-topic, but the guys at Cellar Tracker are TOUGH SCORERS

Your CT note had me thinking.. are these barbaresco scores perhaps too high in certain cases? There are many 30-60 buck wines scored 95+. Either those wines are wildly mispriced or the scores are too high?

[AAgrawal]

A little off-topic, but the guys at Cellar Tracker are TOUGH SCORERS

Your CT note had me thinking.. are these barbaresco scores perhaps too high in certain cases? There are many 30-60 buck wines scored 95+. Either those wines are wildly mispriced or the scores are too high?

In my limited experience so far, those scores are too high. But often there are only a few of them, less than 5 for a lot of 2016s, so I take those with a grain of salt.

[John Morris]

And what do most CT reviewers actually know about young Barbaresco? If they're tasting it now it's probably because they heard a lot about the vintage and came to it with high expectations.

[Ian Sutton]

"More recently, the wine reviewing world has become populated by tasters who award wines absurdly high scores that those wines have no chance of ever actually living up to."

is this one of those statements that sounds true, but really cannot be verified because it's so vague and open-ended?

Stock in trade for wine writers!

As for beware of 'fly by reviewers', that sounds like simply dissing his competitors ..."trust me, I was the annointed one, but was ousted, so now I'm the self-annointed one - follow me loyal sheep!"

[Mich@el Ch@ng]

Sauternes is probably the best value. Plenty of CT 95-97 wines for 100-200 for a 375.

Back in the day, when you could still cross paths with legit 96- to 98-point wines in the general vicinity of $150, I felt like I could give valid scores to wines.

But in the last few years, as those wines soared to prices like $1500 or even $15,000, it started to dawn on me that I have no business whatsoever assigning scores to wines anymore, simply because I don't socialize in them zip codes no mo'.

Ergo I can try to imagine how a 98-point $15,000 Musigny might smell or taste, but it ain't never gonna get anywhere near muh nostrils [much less actually enter muh mouf].

[John Morris]

As for beware of 'fly by reviewers', that sounds like simply dissing his competitors ..."trust me, I was the annointed one, but was ousted, so now I'm the self-annointed one - follow me loyal sheep!"

Indeed, it sounds like a pissy way of saying, "I was here first."

He was (among critics writing in English), and deep knowledge of a region over a long span is of huge importance, particularly with wines like Barolo and Burgundy that are hard to judge young.

But even in his Piedmont Report days, he had an extremely compressed scale. Pretty much everything was scored 89-94. And I never found his notes very helpful. Worst of all, I've never seen him note wines that were distinctly oaky, something many of us nebbiolo lovers want to know. I've been dumbfounded on a number of occasions to read his reviews of wines that clobbered you with oak, and all he talked about was the nuances and beams of this or that, and how I shouldn't miss the wine. (To his credit, he doesn't seem as profligate with scores over 95 as many other critics.)

So, he is clearly knowledgeable and he's been following the wines for a long time, but that doesn't suffice. For my money, I'd rather listen to Walter Fissler, Jancis Robinson's Piedmont man.

[John Morris]

Sauternes is probably the best value. Plenty of CT 95-97 wines for 100-200 for a 375.

I think sweet wines tend to get high scores. They're hard not to like. I know I find myself giving lots of points to sweet wines when I'm keeping notes for myself. I wouldn't base any QPR calculations on those CT scores.

[AAgrawal]

Sauternes is probably the best value. Plenty of CT 95-97 wines for 100-200 for a 375.

I think sweet wines tend to get high scores. They're hard not to like. I know I find myself giving lots of points to sweet wines when I'm keeping notes for myself. I wouldn't base any QPR calculations on those CT scores.

Why not? If you like them that much, aren't they worth as much as other wines that you like that much? I may be an outlier, but that's how sauternes ended up being 30% of my cellar...

[John Morris]

I have no quarrel with sweet wines. I own a lot of late harvest riesling. But I think the idea of some mathematical calculation of value based on CT scores (basically, points per dollar) is just silly.

[Nathan Smyth]

a 92 point Burgundy on CT will likely be one of the best wines I've ever had in my life. a 94 point cali cab... maybe the best wine you have in that two week period.

The Truth hurts, but I LOL'ed.

[G. Shields]

For my money, I'd rather listen to Walter Fissler, Jancis Robinson's Piedmont man.

John, just for correction, it’s Walter Speller...

I agree that he seems a useful source of info. I like that he tastes a bunch of the wines blind, and often again at the domaine. I feel this provides a reliable judgement. He also does call out oak/élevage notes when he comes across them.

[A. So]

"More recently, the wine reviewing world has become populated by tasters who award wines absurdly high scores that those wines have no chance of ever actually living up to."

John 8:7

[Markus S]

And what do most CT reviewers actually know about young Barbaresco? If they're tasting it now it's probably because they heard a lot about the vintage and came to it with high expectations.

I would value collective judgement. I think there is worth in group thinking, if you remove the outliers than can distort results.

[John Morris]

For my money, I'd rather listen to Walter Fissler, Jancis Robinson's Piedmont man.

John, just for correction, it’s Walter Speller...

Oops. My bad.

[John Morris]

And what do most CT reviewers actually know about young Barbaresco? If they're tasting it now it's probably because they heard a lot about the vintage and came to it with high expectations.

I would value collective judgement. I think there is worth in group thinking, if you remove the outliers than can distort results.

Collective judgment of people who may know little about tasting wines that are hard to evaluate young?

[Markus S]

And what do most CT reviewers actually know about young Barbaresco? If they're tasting it now it's probably because they heard a lot about the vintage and came to it with high expectations.

I would value collective judgement. I think there is worth in group thinking, if you remove the outliers than can distort results.

Collective judgment of people who may know little about tasting wines that are hard to evaluate young?

I believe most folks posting on CT have some acquaintance with wine, and unless there is some idiot who always posts "93" on wines, I think the scores there can be parsed to get a fairly accurate reading of a wine. When you take out the outliers (for instance, the Cali Cab drinker giving a "65" to a Jura poulsard), you get even better results. I feel it's the same way I read critics. Examine the trigger words (these are individual to everyone) and either discount them or give them weight to adjust to your palate. Obviously if someone merely posts a score with no context, that would not get used.

[John Morris]

I've been in a number of blind tasting groups for years, and when tasting serious young wines on release, the tendency is for people to give the highest scores to the most approachable ones. Relatively few people have tasted wines young and followed them over decades and have a sense for when a wine has great potential but is very young and tight. I think that's particularly an issue with Burgundy and nebbiolo-based wines, but also with cabs in many cases. That's why so much winemaking these days is aimed at making wines that are easy to drink out of the gate, even if that means sacrificing depth and longevity.

Add to that the fact that most CT posters are not tasting blind, and there are lots of reasons to discount those scores of very young wines.

[DennizE]

I've tried using Vivino a few times especially when buying $15-20 wines and most times I've been disappointed. 4.0 wines that sounds like solid wines in the comment section turns out to lack any depth and complexity instead they are hiding behind a lot of oak, vanilla and sweetness.

For some times now I've been using an average of Wine Spectator and James Suckling scores as pointers on what to expect of a wine. WS can be low with their scores and JS is the king of inflating points.
So if WS gave a wine 91 and JS gave the same wine 96 I'd assume it is a 93 point wine. It's not always accurate but it works as a good pointer.

If its an Italian wine I look up and there's no WS rating and only a JS rating I subtract 5-7 points from what JS gave. I participated in a tasting hosted by a tuscan winery which WS gave a low 90s rating while JS gave it an almost perfect 100. I'm a big fan of Italian wines but I don't think its just Barbaresco that "suffer" from point inflation.

[larry schaffer]

Another interesting thread - and AG's sentiments could certainly be echoed by every 'professional' reviewer out there. I understand where he is coming from - but this doesn't kind of sound a little 'sour grapes' to me, no?

At the end of the day, are wines being made 'better' and 'more consistent' than ever, therefore 'objectively deserving' higher scores? I mean, AG has definitely offered higher scores than he did in the past, maybe not necessarily with Italian wines but certainly with domestic ones.

Cheers.

[Oliver McCrum]

For my money, I'd rather listen to Walter Fissler, Jancis Robinson's Piedmont man.

John, just for correction, it’s Walter Speller...

Oops. My bad.

Yeah, you mis-spelled it.