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

[Howard_Cooper]

A market niche was found, but we’re also seeing a correction. We’re seeing a lot more better, less ripe Pinots from producers “dialing in it”. Better oak regimes. Better yeast understanding. But, then, the market has been propping up mediocrity. Growers are spoiled. Most of the sites aren’t all that great, which is why there are so many superficial makeup on a pig Pinots. Isn’t that sort of the premise of this thread?

Wes really is getting to a concern of mine. When you rate wines in the context of its appellation or style, you really are creating confusion. My guess is that the best pinot noir from the really hot central valley in Califorina would still be pretty bad. Do you rate it 100 points because it is the best pinot from the area? If you do, then the winery starts advertising that it got higher ratings than the top pinot noirs from the Russian River, from Lompac, from whereever. I could do the same with Burgundy. If you rate a really, really really good Marsannay 95 points, aren’t you confusing readers when you rate a much better Volnay 93 points because the Volnay isn’t as highly rated in the context of Volnays but is much better overall?

Critics really need to be very upfront in what they are doing stating how they are doing ratings on the front page of newsletters (hopefully in large, bold print).

[Howard_Cooper]

I thought about this for a long time before crossing over from wine merchant to critic, knowing that I would need to use the 100 point scale but wanting to find a way that successful wines from lesser appellations in Burgundy could still have a chance to shine. My solution is to score out of 100 but to offer alongside stars out of 5: So Bourgogne Rouge 89 points is ***** while Musigny 89 points is *

It also means that if tasting a range of pinot noirs from a fledgling region (Hokkaido perhaps) or a less well known part of California or New Zealand - just to pick a few random examples - scores in the 80s can be given, if supported with the reward of a decent number of stars. Of course it does depend on having expectations on what should be the baseline quality of an appellation or region.

Claude Kolm does something similar in his newsletter

Jasper,

Thank you very much for your response. How do you do this for regions you don’t know as well as you know Burgundy? I have read your book on Burgundy so I really believe that you clearly have the expertise in Burgundy, but do you have the same expertise on regions and microclimates, etc., in California or NZ or whatever. Is Lompac Vosne Romanee or Savigny les Beaune? Is the Sonoma Coast Volnay or Santenay or is it more the Cote du Beaune where you have to go inside it where some parts are Cote du Beaune Villages and other parts are Volnay? How can I even interpret this as a reader once I get out of Burgundy where I know the appellations better than I do in California?

[brigcampbell]

It’s a great way to express enthusiasm about the many wonderful passetoutgrains, bourgogne rouge or blanc and the likes, without giving them scores which are reserved for DRC’s.

Then why use the 100 point scale since you know that you’ll never give a particular wine a “DRC score” because it’s reserved.

It’s like reviewing a book and knowing based on the cover it can only do so well.

[Brian_Tuite]

Because Burgundy is a strict hierarchy, and when reviewing a large line-up of wines, the critics have to leave themselves enough runway to give big scores to the bigguns. So like clockwork, Bourgogne to Village to 1er to Grand Cru goes up in score each time, ending with the high scores. If each producer made just a couple of wines, they’d all get high scores.

It’s not because the wines are tough or tannic or closed or whatever. That doesn’t stop the top Piedmont or Bordeaux wines from getting super high scores on release; it’s because there are only one or a couple of those wines.

This makes sense. It’s what Parker fought in Bordeaux, at least initially, but it remained the case in Burgundy. And as someone else said, if people tasted blind, there would probably be different scores. I’ve tasted enough Burgundy with people who have tried to convert me to know that people are very willing to make excuses for Burgundy and they are willing to score it on potential rather than what it is in the glass. “It’s not quite there yet but you can tell it has the structure and the stuffing to be great. I’ll give it a 92 for what it will be at some point later in its evolution.”

The irony is that later, it’s “Wow. You can tell this was a fantastic wine. Would have been absolutely magnificent a few years ago!”

It’s why a friend always jokes that the drinking windows for expensive Burgundy are measured in minutes.

And then, as mentioned, a lot of times the wines are scored by different reviewers.

Your posts are under-appreciated Greg, maybe in a few years they’ll hit peak, maybe not. The window is so narrow you know.

[David_Bu3ker]

It’s a great way to express enthusiasm about the many wonderful passetoutgrains, bourgogne rouge or blanc and the likes, without giving them scores which are reserved for DRC’s.

Then why use the 100 point scale since you know that you’ll never give a particular wine a “DRC score” because it’s reserved.

It’s like reviewing a book and knowing based on the cover it can only do so well.

Brig,

Your post speaks to why I rarely, if ever, score wines anymore. There’s a time and a place for a riper, more fruit forward Pinot Noir, and a time for one that has a stronger earthy and tannic component. There’s a time for reading great literature, and there’s a time to read a book that is fast-paced and entertaining. Placing some categorical or numeric hierarchy over the experience does not add to it. It’s superfluous. Did the wine (or book) achieve what I wanted from it is the only assessment that really matters.

[Dennis_Borczon]

Is it possible that these are just always going to be different wines from CA than Burgundy? That they are never going to taste the same due to where they are grown? Given that, the Can pinots have their own intrinsic appeal, but to compare them directly is just folly. I have never been convinced that there can be a consistent level of sameness between the two no matter where they are produced in Cali. Oregon is closer, but still distinct. Fact remains, if you really want a wine that tastes like RSV or La Tache, you just have to pony up the $$$. Sad, but this is current reality. Does not mean the Cali wines do not deserve a 95 or whatever. They are just a different flavor of ice cream. I can have a 95 point vanilla, or a 95 point strawberry, but is vanilla inherently better than strawberry?

[David_Bu3ker]

Vanilla is in fact inherently better than strawberry.

But your overall point is quite valid.

[Howard_Cooper]

Frankly, although there are vast inefficiencies in the market (e.g., price differences can be exaggerated over quality differences, certain younger or otherwise newer producers can be underpriced until the market catches up, the market can be slow to react to changes in quality for older estates, etc.), for many, many wines, the market is telling you which wines are the best or at least the most prized by the prices charged. In point, California Cabernets cost as much or more than Bordeaux, domestic Pinot does not in general command the same prices as Burgundy. Savigny does not sell for as much as Volnay. Etc., etc.

[Larry_Chmel]

I’ve always viewed rating scores as mostly useless. First hand experience with previous vintages/producers is what matters most to me (although reading others comments can also be useful).

[JasperMorris]

I thought about this for a long time before crossing over from wine merchant to critic, knowing that I would need to use the 100 point scale but wanting to find a way that successful wines from lesser appellations in Burgundy could still have a chance to shine. My solution is to score out of 100 but to offer alongside stars out of 5: So Bourgogne Rouge 89 points is ***** while Musigny 89 points is *

It also means that if tasting a range of pinot noirs from a fledgling region (Hokkaido perhaps) or a less well known part of California or New Zealand - just to pick a few random examples - scores in the 80s can be given, if supported with the reward of a decent number of stars. Of course it does depend on having expectations on what should be the baseline quality of an appellation or region.

Claude Kolm does something similar in his newsletter

Jasper,

Thank you very much for your response. How do you do this for regions you don’t know as well as you know Burgundy? I have read your book on Burgundy so I really believe that you clearly have the expertise in Burgundy, but do you have the same expertise on regions and microclimates, etc., in California or NZ or whatever. Is Lompac Vosne Romanee or Savigny les Beaune? Is the Sonoma Coast Volnay or Santenay or is it more the Cote du Beaune where you have to go inside it where some parts are Cote du Beaune Villages and other parts are Volnay? How can I even interpret this as a reader once I get out of Burgundy where I know the appellations better than I do in California?

Excellent question, Howard. I am not going to try for pinpoint sophistication, not unless I get to spend a lot more time in California, Oregon, NZ etc - actually the last is the pinot place I probably know best outside Burgundy.
However I will take into account the category of the wine which will mainly be Regular bottling or Single Vineyard/Reserve Bottling, though also allowing for second label/mass market wines at the bottom end and Supercuvee at the top.

[Howard_Cooper]

I thought about this for a long time before crossing over from wine merchant to critic, knowing that I would need to use the 100 point scale but wanting to find a way that successful wines from lesser appellations in Burgundy could still have a chance to shine. My solution is to score out of 100 but to offer alongside stars out of 5: So Bourgogne Rouge 89 points is ***** while Musigny 89 points is *

It also means that if tasting a range of pinot noirs from a fledgling region (Hokkaido perhaps) or a less well known part of California or New Zealand - just to pick a few random examples - scores in the 80s can be given, if supported with the reward of a decent number of stars. Of course it does depend on having expectations on what should be the baseline quality of an appellation or region.

Claude Kolm does something similar in his newsletter

Jasper,

Thank you very much for your response. How do you do this for regions you don’t know as well as you know Burgundy? I have read your book on Burgundy so I really believe that you clearly have the expertise in Burgundy, but do you have the same expertise on regions and microclimates, etc., in California or NZ or whatever. Is Lompac Vosne Romanee or Savigny les Beaune? Is the Sonoma Coast Volnay or Santenay or is it more the Cote du Beaune where you have to go inside it where some parts are Cote du Beaune Villages and other parts are Volnay? How can I even interpret this as a reader once I get out of Burgundy where I know the appellations better than I do in California?

Excellent question, Howard. I am not going to try for pinpoint sophistication, not unless I get to spend a lot more time in California, Oregon, NZ etc - actually the last is the pinot place I probably know best outside Burgundy.
However I will take into account the category of the wine which will mainly be Regular bottling or Single Vineyard/Reserve Bottling, though also allowing for second label/mass market wines at the bottom end and Supercuvee at the top.

Thank you for the honest and well thought out response.

[William_Kelley]

This is a professionally interesting discussion, though also a bit of a rabbit warren (when I want to avoid getting into it, when people ask me about scoring, my stock reply is that, being British, I score out of 20 and then simply multiply by five).

In the Médoc, where the existing hierarchy is the ranking of producers (not terroirs) in 1855, the 100-point system is somewhat egalitarian, in that it cuts through the 1855 system and a 5th growth can come out on top of a 1st growth.

In Burgundy, however, where there is also an even more entrenched hierarchy of terroirs, the practical tendency of the system is to reinforce that hierarchy, with only the top sites ever having a shot at the highest numbers. Jasper’s idea of awarding stars is one solution to this problem, which he and I have discussed and I think find equally frustrating; yet is not 89/100 and 5 stars for a Bourgogne rouge tantamount to saying “I would score this higher if it were not a regional wine”? My preferred solution would be simply to score said Bourgogne rouge a point higher; yet it’s true that the 100-point scale is so compressed today that there are not many points to play with if one wishes to express such nuances.

Difficulties notwithstanding, as I’ve observed, one of this strong existing hierarchy is that scores for Burgundy are generally quite conservative. And that systemic tendency may have been amplified by the fact that people such as Allen Meadows, Tanzer, John Gilman and other respected and prolific voices on Burgundy also happen to be generally quite conservative scorers. Indeed, Allen at least has taken philosophical issue with the notion of ever awarding 100/100. Burgundy had also long been reviewed very conservatively by TWA, and indeed I was recently accused of being unduly generous by giving 100-point scores to two older vintages of Coche-Dury Corton-Charlemagne.

Clearly scoring has to be contextual: in what sense can a fino sherry be rated on the same scale as a Beaujolais? But it’s an open, or at least undefined, question as to quite how contextual it should be. Should Burgundy be scored as a region, including the Beaujolais? As the Côte de Nuits, Côte de Beaune, Côte Chalonnaise etc? By commune? Or by level in the appellation hierarchy? I think most critics’ implicit answers to this question are intuitive rather than defined, but fortunately I think most consumers intuitively understand them, and they are looking for different things in a 90-point Monthélie than in a 90-point Vosne-Romanée.

[Claus_Jeppesen]

A grand payable Burgundy is somewhat rare
A grand drinkable CA Pinit is even rarer

[JasperMorris]

This is a professionally interesting discussion, though also a bit of a rabbit warren (when I want to avoid getting into it, when people ask me about scoring, my stock reply is that, being British, I score out of 20 and then simply multiply by five).


In Burgundy, however, where there is also an even more entrenched hierarchy of terroirs, the practical tendency of the system is to reinforce that hierarchy, with only the top sites ever having a shot at the highest numbers. Jasper’s idea of awarding stars is one solution to this problem, which he and I have discussed and I think find equally frustrating; yet is not 89/100 and 5 stars for a Bourgogne rouge tantamount to saying “I would score this higher if it were not a regional wine”? My preferred solution would be simply to score said Bourgogne rouge a point higher; yet it’s true that the 100-point scale is so compressed today that there are not many points to play with if one wishes to express such nuances.

William, your multiplying by 5 point is exactly what Clive Coates once did: he scored out of 20 then gave the wines as it might be 72.5, 75, 77.5, 80 etc. I forget which magazine the article was in.

I take your point about why not give the Bourgogne one point higher but that is not in fact the point. I would have given it 89 points because that is what I thought the wine rated in absolute terms (another Bourgogne might get 90 or possibly more). The idea with the 5 stars is to give the wine its moment in the sun for its excellence within category - or as Clive used to say “very good for what it is”.

[David_Bu3ker]

The idea with the 5 stars is to give the wine its moment in the sun for its excellence within category - or as Clive used to say “very good for what it is”.

When Meadows uses his “highly recommended” icon for a Bourgogne or village wine it achieves a similar objective.

[g.colangelo]

It’s like reviewing a book and knowing based on the cover it can only do so well.

That’s an apt analogy: indeed I would say that if a literary critic were giving points to prose, from short stories to long novels, it would be understandable to reserve scores close to 100 points to long novels which have breadth and depth. At the same time one could find a short story a masterpiece, give it 90 points on the overall scale, but 5 stars because it is among the best short stories ever written.

[brigcampbell]

It’s like reviewing a book and knowing based on the cover it can only do so well.

That’s an apt analogy: indeed I would say that if a literary critic were giving points to prose, from short stories to long novels, it would be understandable to reserve scores close to 100 points to long novels which have breadth and depth. At the same time one could find a short story a masterpiece, give it 90 points on the overall scale, but 5 stars because it is among the best short stories ever written.

I’ll give it an 87 and 5 stars

[Wes_Barton]

Is it possible that these are just always going to be different wines from CA than Burgundy? That they are never going to taste the same due to where they are grown? Given that, the Can pinots have their own intrinsic appeal, but to compare them directly is just folly. I have never been convinced that there can be a consistent level of sameness between the two no matter where they are produced in Cali. Oregon is closer, but still distinct. Fact remains, if you really want a wine that tastes like RSV or La Tache, you just have to pony up the $$$. Sad, but this is current reality. Does not mean the Cali wines do not deserve a 95 or whatever. They are just a different flavor of ice cream. I can have a 95 point vanilla, or a 95 point strawberry, but is vanilla inherently better than strawberry?

There have been many blind tastings of CA vs Burg with very experienced people getting quite a few wrong, each way. Sure, the very best Burgs aren’t likely going to be confused, but some respectable ones are, and some CA producers’ PNs can be confused. Especially when mature. I’m not sure “Oregon is closer” is true. Maybe that’s selection bias. Or maybe it’s double the percentage of OR producers as CA. How cares about the also-rans? There’s no shortage of crappy Burgundy, too.

Yes, if you want La Tache you have to pay for it. You won’t find a CA PN close to that price, either.

[A_Songeur]

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

Maybe because they had lower expectations?..
Anyway, it is a bit like food. When leaving a restaurant if somebody asks me "Did you prefer the profiterolles or the lamb stew? ", I would feel embarrassed to answer although, obviously I could give a 92 and a 95… for implementation…

[Brian_Glas]

After seeing the prices for California and Burgundy, I think I will stick with Oregon Pinots. Who knows. I might like many of the California or Burgundy wine but my wine budget won’t.