I don’t recall him ever saying that. And he certainly never gave a Muscadet or a sauvignon blanc or a dolcetto a high-90s score, which you’d expect if the scale was relative to the potential of the region.
From the Wine Advocate website (current):
“The numeral rating given is a guide to how the reviewer considers the wine to rate vis-à-vis its peer group (e.g., style, region and/or grape variety).”
I’m pretty sure that hasn’t changed from Parker’s original.
In any event, nothing in that statement means the reviewer is required to use the full 100-point scale for each region/variety/whatever.
Brian, you’re not wrong. Oregon delivers excellent value compared to CA and Burgundy Pinot Noir, stylistic differences aside. For me, I enjoy a lot of Oregon Pinot, but I like California a bit more (particularly those from West Sonoma/Mendo) and have a long term infatuation with Burgundy. So: I spend accordingly. But yea, it’s heartbreaking to taste a wine like 2017 Vogüé Bonnes Mares (omg! yum!) and then look up the price (around $500).
This is an excellent and pithy summary of the reality of variable numerical scales. And it seems pretty likely that while some regions can produce wine across the entire range, all the way up to perfect 100s, others don’t have the variety/terroir/etc. to make epic wines. An entire region with a wine no higher than 92? Sure, why not?
One example from my own tasting is Vino Nobile de Montepulciano. Spending a summer there, I drank many of the wines and sampled as many of the top producers as I could. Lovely wines, excellent with the local food. But none reached the heights of the top Chiantis or Brunellos. Not even close.
I guess that is true, but they also seem to track the hierarchy pretty much. I am not sure I even need to read Tanzer’s reviews any more, I can predict his score just based on the status of the appellation (Grand Cru, Premier Cru, Villages).
But they are tougher, that’s for sure. Still remember drinking a Dujac about 10 years ago. So long ago I forget which one, I think a Premier Cru. Tanzer had given it 88-89 points. We also just sat there shaking our heads (including a prominent wine/Burg importer), wondering how such a beautiful wine could get so few points.
I guess you guys have never heard of the Côte Chalonnaise
Ok you got me. I’ve had quite a few very good wines from Mercurey and Givry, and would happily drink more. And for sure price competitive with Oregon. I’ve never seen an Oregon vs. Cote Chalonnaise head to head but I’m sure it would be fun.
Rich, I know that you drink a good bit of Burgundy and so you can make pretty good assessments of the merits of Burgundy vs. other pinot. But, when you cite to CdV Bonnes Mares (you are correct, it was fabulous) as being reflective of Burgundy prices, well you know better than that. It is like saying that Bordeaux is a much better value than California Cabernet because of the price of Screaming Eagle.
Yes, you are correct that Burgundy prices have gotten too high. Fortunately, I bought a lot of my Burgundy before the last year or two when prices really have gone soaring. But, there still are pretty good values out there although you have to work harder to find them. For example, I love the Chassagne Montrachet reds from Ramonet or Bernard Moreau, although I admit that I got really good pricing on them by buying out of a store in Chassagne Montrachet.
And, you are correct. I bet Faiveley’s Mercury Clos de Myglands, one of Juillot’s wines from Mercury, a Givry from Domaine des Moirots, or anything from Aubert de Villaine (to name a few examples) could compete pretty well against pinot noirs from other parts of the world.
That’s right. I’d forgotten that line. I’m not sure that was in there in the early years, but I don’t have my old issues nearby.
In practice, I think he always applied the 100-point scale as a universal, across-the-board measure of quality. What does that line mean if the greatest possible Muscadet – or albarino or dolcetto – only rates 90? Precise thinking was never his strong suit.
Maybe that is because SQN or Rolland never made Muscadet? Frankly, would you really want to tasted the oaky wines of these types that he would rate in the upper 90s?
That’s a good point. If the scale was supposed to be relative to the type, then why weren’t there more 88-point New World wines?
I guess there were not enough really good ones like ESJ for him to downgrade.
That’s not what I meant - just that the top Burgundy is crazy expensive in a way that Oregon Pinot never is.
Clearly the best information-theoretic approach here is use something very like the Richter scale. Is unbounded on the top end, getting rid of all those issues with compression of the scoring range and allowing a universal quality rating you can use across regions.
Just need to calibrate it properly. Something like:a decent beaujolais-villages could be a 5.0, a slighter better one 5.2, an order of magnitude better Brouilly from a good not great producer would be 6.0, and Foillard Cote du Py would be 7.0.
An alternative calibration could make use of the negative numberline as well: 0.0 would be a wine that has no redeeming features but is drinkable. Less than 0 – not drinkable. Positive numbers – actually tasty to various degrees.
The only small issue is that it’s completely unintuitive
How many Oregon pinots are as good as CdV Bonnes Mares. Isn’t the question more like how many are as good as Clerget Volnay, Faiveley Mercury or Hudelot-Noellat Bourgogne Rouge?
I was just trying to avoid absolute quality judgments. Just trying to make the point that by not diving into Burgundy you dodge these kinds of moments.
1 Like
Brilliant! The biggest breakthrough in wine scoring since the Parker 100-point scale.
Now, can you convert all of the Wine Advocate’s, Vinous’s, and Jancis Robinson’s scores to your log scale, adjusting for their differing means, medians and curves?
I was more intrigued that Galloni rated the Rivers-Marie Platt Vineyard 100 points…higher, I believe, than any of the DRC Romanee-Conti’s in years past, though I think the equal of the 2005 DRC La Tâche at 100 points.
So it does make a difference (to some) whether this is a score based upon an absolute rating scale, or contextual in comparison to wines of the same type from the same region.
Or not.
I agree that with some younger wines, yes you can confuse them. With age (+10 yrs) the Burgs jump out at me like a sore thumb. Cali pinots hang on to the cherry berry fruity flavors a lot longer. Or just get weird and alcoholic (especially the big bruiser template wines) Only possible exception has been some of the really old 90’s Williams Selyem wines made by Burt. Even then they have that Cali pinot sweetness. I doubt most of us would have trouble sorting out a Chambolle Musigny from a Belle Glos…ever.
1 Like
He wrote about this a few times with respect to Beaujolais. If I remember correctly, he said that the highest he felt a Beaujolais could score was 90. That was partly due to ageability.
Then some years later he rated some Cru Bojo 92 or 93.