CA Pinot vs Burgundy — why are critics kinder to CA?

[Chris_Seiber]

As for why Wine writers overrate domestic pinots, read this board. The lovers of these wines are snowflakes who go ballistic when any of their favorites don’t get huge scores. It is easier for wine writers to humor them.

Wow, talk about going ballistic.

[JLee]

I have always wondered this as well. its not just true for professional reviewers I feel though. CT does the same thing. consider this: average CT ratings for Rivers Marie old vine Summa are about the same as Domaine Leroy Nuits St Georges.

im gonna get pushback on that, so I’m gonna qualify with it was just an example based on a very fast CT search.

There’s usually not much of an overlap between the drinkers of those two wines. so it’s hard to expect a consistency between their scores.

Also mailing list wines go to devotees. I tried Rivers Marie and it wasn’t for me but my vote’s not on there, while fans of the producer who are on the list have probably scored its wines many times.

Expensive burgundies go to devotees too but as others have explained people aren’t giving village wines high scores.

[Jeremy_C]

It’s pretty much an objective fact in my own mind that Burg scorers (pro and and amateur alike) are the toughest of the bunch. I don’t know why that is.

Because of Romanee Conti, La Tache, Musigny and such. If these are 100 point wines or something close, probably a really, really good MSD Clos Sorbes, as wonderful as it is, isn’t. This is one reason why I have stopped rating wines.

This is the reason why Burg scores get depressed. The hierarchy is so ingrained that it permeates all Burg scoring and tasting notes. Burgundy is unavoidably hyper-contextual. No reviewer is going to rate Mugnier’s Chambolle AOC 98 points, no matter how good it is (and at its best it’s absolutely better than any CA Pinot I’ve ever had), because then how are you going to deal with Fuees, Amoureuses, and Musigny? Most of the famous Burg reviewers tend to be very hierarchical. By contrast, wines like Scarecrow or even something like Yquem are more singular and a-contextual.

This nails it.

[etomasi]

Just did a tasting of 8 pinots. 4 burgs and 4 Ca. All were 2015 that was supposed to be a good year for burgundy. The burgs were all premier cru and all rated 92-95 from WA or BH. They also cost on average twice the CA. I alternated odd and even. All were blind. Out of 18 people only two liked the burgs better and one of those was pregnant and could only smell. Maybe global warming will help burgundy.

Umm, ok. I have found some of 2015 burgs to be very california-like. Too much so for me. When burgs start getting cola notes, its too ripe for me.

[g.colangelo]

Just did a tasting of 8 pinots. 4 burgs and 4 Ca. All were 2015 that was supposed to be a good year for burgundy. The burgs were all premier cru and all rated 92-95 from WA or BH. They also cost on average twice the CA. I alternated odd and even. All were blind. Out of 18 people only two liked the burgs better and one of those was pregnant and could only smell. Maybe global warming will help burgundy.

Without knowing what wines you tasted, I assume that stylistically the burgs and the Ca were clearly different. Apparently most of the tasters preferred the Ca style, and there is nothing wrong with that. This is the problem with scores: there is no absolute scale, and even if you are comparing the same single-variety wines, style differences will matter more to the individual consumer than any attempt to rank different wines on an absolute quality scale.

[Howard_Cooper]

Just did a tasting of 8 pinots. 4 burgs and 4 Ca. All were 2015 that was supposed to be a good year for burgundy. The burgs were all premier cru and all rated 92-95 from WA or BH. They also cost on average twice the CA. I alternated odd and even. All were blind. Out of 18 people only two liked the burgs better and one of those was pregnant and could only smell. Maybe global warming will help burgundy.

If you think the problem with 2015 Burgundies is that they are not ripe enough I don’t know what to say other than I highly recommend you never waste your money buying a bottle of Burgundy. I very seriously doubt you will ever like one.

[Robert_Grenley]

I find, as mentioned, that Burghound scores for Burgundies and domestic, CA and OR, pinot noirs are pretty consistently scored …meaning that it is very rare that a domestic PN gets at or above a 93, while top Burgundies hit 94-95 and the real top Burgs can go into the 96-98 range. So, by consistently scored, I mean, consistent with what I would expect for wines of different levels of complexity and aging potential… ie: a 92 means a certain level of quality regardless of where the Pinot noir based wine is from, recognizing of course that domestic PN is not meant to be Burgundy and vice versa. BH’s scoring is pretty conservative for both domestic PN’s and Burgs as well, and his higher scores for the upper level Burgs surely reflect his preference for the style of those wines, particularly their potential.

I also find that John Gilman’s scoring is pretty consistent in the same way…fairly conservative, with exceptional scores given to domestic PN’s and Burgs somewhat sparingly, but perhaps with some of his favorite domestics getting somewhat higher scores than BH gives, and the exceptional Burgundies being scored higher than the domestics as one might expect.

However, I find that Galloni is very free about giving extremely high scores to many domestic PN’s, even a bit more so than to Burgundies, and in fact to all wines from all over! Which makes his ratings difficult to interpret and less useful to me. It seems like he is more captivated by the “hedonistic”, ripe domestic wines with “gobs of fruit” than the others…at least that is my opinion. So he fits with the OP’s observation, I think.

It would be interesting to hear what William Kelley would say about using a consistent scoring range across different regions, where a 95 point domestic PN is judged to be the qualitative equal of a 95 point Burgundy…as opposed to the scores only rating the wines in comparison to other wines of the same varietal from the same region, and thus a 95 would mean very different things depending on what region you are discussing.

[Mattstolz]

has Burghound ever given a 100 point score?

its funny, I see a 91 from Suckling and wonder “hmm wonder what went wrong with this wine?”
I see a 91 from Burghound and its like “oh shoot this must be pretty good!”

[Markus_S]

And there is simply no way that there are tons of great and world class pinots (95 points?) in CA for $50 if there are hardly any in burgundy for less than $200… if that were the case, no one would bother chasing good/great burgundy.

Could be a bit of jingoism going on, as most of the critics are Americans and want to defend the home turf?

[Markus_S]

Just did a tasting of 8 pinots. 4 burgs and 4 Ca. All were 2015 that was supposed to be a good year for burgundy. The burgs were all premier cru and all rated 92-95 from WA or BH. They also cost on average twice the CA. I alternated odd and even. All were blind. Out of 18 people only two liked the burgs better and one of those was pregnant and could only smell. Maybe global warming will help burgundy.

If you think the problem with 2015 Burgundies is that they are not ripe enough I don’t know what to say other than I highly recommend you never waste your money buying a bottle of Burgundy. I very seriously doubt you will ever like one.

Definitely THIS.

[Kirk.Grant]

I could be mis-remembering (I have a head injury from my time in the Army so my memory is not always the most reliable). I think I recall someone once saying that a 92 from say…Monthelie is not the same as a 92 from Clos St. Denis. While they both may be a 92 in the actual score, the 92 is a high outlier for the region in Monthelie when a 92 is rather low for coming from a Grand Cru vineyard. When I heard it (at the time) it kind of made sense to me. That’s all the feedback I got though.

One other thought is simply this…people enjoy things differently for different reasons. Maybe wines like Kosta Brown appeal to someone that wants a delicious wine, something that’s tasty & easy to wrap your mind around. You drink it and think, “wow…tasty” but Burgundy, for me has always been a more cerebral experience where I take a sip, think, and then take another sip. It all depends on if you want to drink wine on auto-pilot or stare into the depths and try to see what’s there.

[Howard_Cooper]

I could be mis-remembering (I have a head injury from my time in the Army so my memory is not always the most reliable). I think I recall someone once saying that a 92 from say…Monthelie is not the same as a 92 from Clos St. Denis. While they both may be a 92 in the actual score, the 92 is a high outlier for the region in Monthelie when a 92 is rather low for coming from a Grand Cru vineyard. When I heard it (at the time) it kind of made sense to me. That’s all the feedback I got though.

I think one issue is that different wine writers (and even different posters on this board) have different philosophies on this. You probably did read that someone did say this, but who does it this way and who tries to provide absolute scores, whatever that means.

I doubt that anyone is really consistent or we would see 100 point Monthelies. I don’t think I have ever seen one.

[Wes_Barton]

Just did a tasting of 8 pinots. 4 burgs and 4 Ca. All were 2015 that was supposed to be a good year for burgundy. The burgs were all premier cru and all rated 92-95 from WA or BH. They also cost on average twice the CA. I alternated odd and even. All were blind. Out of 18 people only two liked the burgs better and one of those was pregnant and could only smell. Maybe global warming will help burgundy.

Without knowing what wines you tasted, I assume that stylistically the burgs and the Ca were clearly different. Apparently most of the tasters preferred the Ca style, and there is nothing wrong with that. This is the problem with scores: there is no absolute scale, and even if you are comparing the same single-variety wines, style differences will matter more to the individual consumer than any attempt to rank different wines on an absolute quality scale.

That’s not a problem with scores, it’s insight into their value. In the real world, one person’s 96 can be another’s 70 due to style, preference, experience, specific fetishes and aversions and so forth. What aspects people value in wine can be completely different person to person.

Forever ago Wine Spectator did a blind Oregon vs Burgundy tasting article, where their two relevant critics tasted blind pairs together. So, each wine got two TNs with scores and guesses if it was OR or Burg. Plenty of wrong guesses, and some wines with big score differentials - one by 15 points. Unusual honesty for a business that portrays its value largely in the illusion of objective standard - a “mistake” not repeated. But, that’s the real world. You may like a wine no one else likes. You may find critic/board darlings boring or revolting.

[Josh_Grossman]

I personally prefer my Burgundy to be around 20 years old (or older) to get the notes I love. I’ve yet to get sous bois from anything in Cali. Not saying that Cali isn’t worth aging as I’ve got some cool tea, soy, and coffee notes from them–but never sous bois. If you aren’t judging a wine for tertiary flavor development, and only on primary and secondary flavors–it’s easier to give it a high score on things like finish length and fruit.

[Howard_Cooper]

Just did a tasting of 8 pinots. 4 burgs and 4 Ca. All were 2015 that was supposed to be a good year for burgundy. The burgs were all premier cru and all rated 92-95 from WA or BH. They also cost on average twice the CA. I alternated odd and even. All were blind. Out of 18 people only two liked the burgs better and one of those was pregnant and could only smell. Maybe global warming will help burgundy.

Without knowing what wines you tasted, I assume that stylistically the burgs and the Ca were clearly different. Apparently most of the tasters preferred the Ca style, and there is nothing wrong with that. This is the problem with scores: there is no absolute scale, and even if you are comparing the same single-variety wines, style differences will matter more to the individual consumer than any attempt to rank different wines on an absolute quality scale.

That’s not a problem with scores, it’s insight into their value. In the real world, one person’s 96 can be another’s 70 due to style, preference, experience, specific fetishes and aversions and so forth. What aspects people value in wine can be completely different person to person.

Forever ago Wine Spectator did a blind Oregon vs Burgundy tasting article, where their two relevant critics tasted blind pairs together. So, each wine got two TNs with scores and guesses if it was OR or Burg. Plenty of wrong guesses, and some wines with big score differentials - one by 15 points. Unusual honesty for a business that portrays its value largely in the illusion of objective standard - a “mistake” not repeated. But, that’s the real world. You may like a wine no one else likes. You may find critic/board darlings boring or revolting.

Great post. I really do not believe in an objective standard for higher end wine. Taken to its extreme, I wonder if there could be a wine that “objectively” is rated 100 points but subjectively nobody would like it. One of the more rewarding things in wine is finding others (whether wine critics, posters on this board, or friends) whose palates line up somewhat like yours does. I know that there are some people on this board where I feel like if they like the wine I probably will also, but others on this board where their enjoying or not enjoying a specific wine is not at all predictive for me.

[Wes_Barton]

I could be mis-remembering (I have a head injury from my time in the Army so my memory is not always the most reliable). I think I recall someone once saying that a 92 from say…Monthelie is not the same as a 92 from Clos St. Denis. While they both may be a 92 in the actual score, the 92 is a high outlier for the region in Monthelie when a 92 is rather low for coming from a Grand Cru vineyard. When I heard it (at the time) it kind of made sense to me. That’s all the feedback I got though.

Sounds like a statement of quality vs expectation. Those two bottles might be the same quality, but their expressions are still quite different.

[Howard_Cooper]

I personally prefer my Burgundy to be around 20 years old (or older) to get the notes I love.

For me, it depends. Certainly, I like most grand crus and premier crus with age on them - although in many vintages 10-15 years is plenty (and in 2005 will 20 years be enough, who knows).

But, I sometimes like the bright fruit and good acidity of a well-made young Bourgogne Rouge or other lesser terroir Burgundy (say from the Côte Chalonnaise) with say salmon.

[Brandon_R]

I always assumed that wines were rated within the context of the region and variety. In other words, CA Pinot Noirs are rated within the context of that world only, and they’re not comparable to Burgundy. Burgundies are rated within the context of red Burgundy. So, a 95 point CA Pinot and a 95 point Burg aren’t equally “good” necessarily, but they’re deemed to be very high quality within the context of the region. So, if that same exact CA Pinot juice that was rated a 95 was labeled and tasted as a Burg, it would likely receive a much lower score…at least, I would hope.

[Brady_Daniels]

Just did a tasting of 8 pinots. 4 burgs and 4 Ca. All were 2015 that was supposed to be a good year for burgundy. The burgs were all premier cru and all rated 92-95 from WA or BH. They also cost on average twice the CA. I alternated odd and even. All were blind. Out of 18 people only two liked the burgs better and one of those was pregnant and could only smell. Maybe global warming will help burgundy.

Funny, I love burgundy, but have drunk exactly zero of my 2015 premier crus. Based on your tasting, I wonder if I should just sell them now? Or perhaps I should just hold them until they are meant to be drunk, perhaps at age ten, fifteen, or twenty?

Look, if you like your Pinot fruity and young, that is cool. Drink CA Pinot that suits your palate. But don’t compare young CA Pinot to closed Burgundy and pretend you are proving anything.

[crickey]

Tanzer covered pinot across the globe for many years, so there is a lot of data there. When he hired Josh Raynolds, I remember him saying that he and Josh generally scored very closely to each other on the same wines, so there is more data there, as Josh covers Oregon and some California. There is some data for Galloni, as he covered Burgundy for a short time and still covers California. There is a little data for William Kelley, who sometimes posts here and would be a good source to answer the question in the original post. Also, I had forgotten in my original post, both John Gilman and Allen Meadows cover both Burgundy and California pinot, so there is another source of data.

The original poster assumed his own conclusion with the following: “Again, I am by no means an expert, but I’ve tasted my thousand or so pinots. I’ve never been afforded the chance to taste much burgundy in the $150 and up category, but in the $50-150 range it does often seem as or more compelling per dollar than the CA counterparts.” He like Burgundy better, so he may very well have different rating criteria than critics.