Is it the lack of transparency or the ‘clean washing’ of consumers on social media ‘scaring’ millenials? Another way of looking at this . . .
Cheers
3 Likes
But that’s a very different problem than wine critics ability to make a living and work independently of the industry. Why would it ever be critics’ jobs to let the world know how every bottle of wine is made?
Aside from that, I don’t buy the “lack of transparency” being a real problem. That sounds a lot more like an artifact of receiving an earful from some “natural wine” zealot than a real issue. What is it people don’t know about what goes in a bottle of wine that isn’t factory produced after all?
1 Like
Transparency is one thing, information overload is another.
When consumers mention transparency in the context of wine is usually things like are the stories behind the winemaker, vineyard and region authentic or a manufactured ones by a big brand and are the wines made in a sustainable and non-exploitive manner.
As Greg has pointed out most consumers simply cannot contextualise all of the tech sheet numbers. That’d require that most consumers be extremely knowledgeable in both winemaking, chemistry, agriculture, and many other areas. That’s simply not a realistic proposition to most. Hell, I’d reckon it’s only a small minority of even Berserkers who are able to fully do so (I’ll be the first to admit I’m not in that elite minority. I can understand some, but it’s a far cry from processing all the tech sheet information fully).
Most consumers just want some reassurance that the products they are consuming are of a certain quality, and well and ethically made.
4 Likes
They don’t need to understand all the data points in order to appreciate that they are transparently available. Some will only seek to use and understand a few data points. Others more. Some none. But having them available is reassuring as to the quality of the wine and the accuracy of the review.
Talking about technical data just doesn’t really offer info on the wine. Think Turley is a good example. If I saw 15.6% alcohol and 20% new oak and a TA of 5.8 on a wine I didn’t know, I would run away as if from a burning fire. However, if I read @Ken_Zinns note on a Turley Zinfandel, I can pick up on what he’s laying down.
There are also many examples of Burgundy that have had a LOT of new oak that have very little barrel notes to me as compared to many BDX with “25% new” oak. So unless you know every cooperage and understand grain tightness and all the other stuff winemakers know, this could actually be DISinformation in terms or what you’d smell and taste in the finished product.
And if we come back to Turley, I’ve had tons of their Zins over the last decade, all of which receive generally the same treatment. The wood clearly reacts very differently with each wine, as some show overt notes and many show none at all to me. I think that even to the well informed consumer this could actually be detrimental.
1 Like
Nobody is advocating for information instead of the note. They come together.
There was an entire thread that talked about some of these issues two years ago. Some of the same people saying some of the same things.
I will highlight one of the last posts:
But sure, keep sticking your heads in the sand.
1 Like
If you’re going on an extreme diet such as Keto, you shouldn’t have any alcohol in it. What silliness!
2 Likes
It seems to me there’s a legit discussion over whether winemakers should include info on the label, but why is it the reviewer’s responsibility in your construct?
Also, I go back to my earlier post. The vast, vast majority (nearly all?) of people consuming wine reviews/scores are those reading shelf talkers at the supermarket or large beverage store. The millennials who want “clean” wine are, I’m guessing, not reading detailed tasting notes in a newsletter they pay for (and the ones who do become wine nerds will get past the “clean” thing).
This entire thread is really interesting from a theoretical perspective. To quote The Simpsons, in theory, Communism works, In theory,
1 Like
The problem is that people ends up reducing a wine to only a handful of figures, and simply using those as the yardstick and focusing just on a handful of figures even if given every single conceivable measurable data point. Oh, let me just focus on the ABV or % of new oak. That’s a far cry from the whole picture. If most Burgundy drinkers were to look at a just the tech sheet for DRC with the producer name left out, I imagine many would balk at the use of 100% new oak and not want to drink it. A wine is more than just the numbers on. I imagine even the most technically minded could not get the full sense of a wine by looking at a tech sheet alone.
I’m not sure I agree that having extra tech sheet information reassures me of the quality and accuracy of any particular wine review. A critic can provide all the tech sheet information in the world, and I may completely disagree with their assessment of a wine. I don’t think those two things are related.
Because the critics’ primary job is to help consumers decide.
Don’t get me wrong, I have an entire thread asking retailers to be more transparent. And producers should be voluntarily more transparent too. But of all three, it is the critic who works supposedly for the consumer.
I don’t understand why the decision-making process of others is a problem for you. Nobody is forcing you to focus solely on those points. Why does it bother you so much that others may want them?
And once again, nobody is saying the tech sheet comes alone. Nobody.
Finally, your concern that DRC sales might fall if people realize what their oak regimen is, I think, unfounded.
This makes no sense. How is a reader reassured about the quality of the wine or the accuracy of a review if the related review contains a recitation of out of context numbers? Who’s reading these reviews, the underpants gnomes?
It’s clear that you want this information, and that’s fine! I don’t think this information is particularly helpful to anyone, but you’re welcome to it. But this information has nothing to do with transparency or the quality or reviews or protecting diabetics from the scourge of unlabeled residual sugar in kabinetts.
I was pointing out that technical numbers even with the context of a well written review can fail to convey the whole picture of a wine. That was what I referring to in my DRC example. DRC is 100% new oak, but admonishers of ‘oaky’ wines are for the most part happy to drink DRC and enjoy it. I wasn’t saying that it’d hurt DRC sales. It’s not like DRC’s oak regimen is a closely guarded secret. I’m merely noting that a focus on the technical numbers, even with a tasting note does not convey the whole picture of a wine.
I had a dinner with a winemaker two months back. I inquired about their oak regimen. They noted it was all at least 3-4x used barrels. Used or ‘neutral’ by most people’s measures. And yet, when I tasted many of the wines, there was an unequivocal strong presence of oak to my palate. Some at the table seemed to not think so. If I looked at just the tech sheet and asked the dining companion to my left if they thought the wine was oaky, all signs would point to no. But when I tasted it, my impression was entirely different.
All that is to say that tech sheets, even with the benefit of someone else’s tastings notes, does not necessarily translate into one own experience with drinking the wine.
You’re welcome to have a look at tech sheets available, and most producers I’ve inquired were happy to answer my questions about their winemaking and specifics about particular wines. Though I suspect if I pressed them for a full lab report on their wines, they’d advise me to not get too bogged down in the numerical figures and note I’m better off tasting the wines and making a decision on that vs. looking at the numbers.
Focusing on tech sheet numbers has an air of concreteness in the same sense that a focus on points does to me.
If it makes sense to you, you’re welcome to it, but I’ll drink the wines and reach my own conclusions.
4 Likes
I have a feeling I know the producer in question 
What even does “fair” mean in this context?
Technical data is not a review and not germane whatsoever. That anecdotal examples exist where impressions don’t match the numbers is enough proof. You want technical data? See a spec sheet or a Calera or Ridge label.
On what basis?
What is the source of funding?
Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch. The fact that critics need to maintain good relationships for access immediately violates any objectivity they might have.
I challenge anyone to list a set of objective and useful scoring criteria. It doesn’t exist. Wine criticism is fully subjective.
And if they’re not in compliance with these criteria?
Greg said it best, this is a solution in search of a problem.
Or in more modern parlance:
5 Likes
I don’t answer questions from people who clearly refuse to read.
Thank you. Let’s move on.
You make perhaps the best argument for what Guillermo is advocating for.
That consumers can’t contextualize information about the chemistry with the wines themselves. But if an experienced regional critic posted a valid TN on one of my wines, I have no issues with adding a chem panel analysis to their review. It’s information that I have on every wine.
AND if people started releasing that information then interested consumers could begin to learn to contextualize that information, or intelligently defend the idea that you can’t buy a wine by it’s chemistry. Over time we could all increase our understanding of how wine chemistry correllates with the wines themselves. And we could all use the data more effectively, and also to sometimes be reminded that wine is magic/art and the data doesn’t relate. We also might learn that we like 1-4 grams of RS in more things than just champagne(or not), and that more wines than Gc Burgundy can take balanced and restrained with 50-100% new wood, especially if it’s 500L puncheons or bigger rather than barriques.
At the very least they could learn that “cheesy” isn’t a barrel note. It’s more likely a dirty old neutral barrel note. But the wine is being made in that dirty old neutral barrel or a boring stainless steel tank or some concrete crap because everyone has a prejudice about new wood when they should have a prejudice about over ripe fruit, powdered tannins, mega-purple, micro-ox, and fermentation enzymes, all of which are more likely to be the culprit with what’s often perceived as new oak. Of course having new oak with all of those other issues does make it worse.
Or that cheesy can be a lactic issue associated with natural winemakers, or possibly an aged white wine character that relates to oxidation through bottle aging.
A lot of wineries feel like they might lose sales if they publicized technical data(though many also have excellent tech sheets available on their websites). And to be frank, they’re probably right.
A lot of people think abv over 14% can never taste good, but have no real clue what the alcohols of the wines they like are actually at. The legal variance is significant. Expertise without ever calibrating your taste with true numbers is no expertise at all. That doesn’t mean Guillermo actually loves wines over 14%, but it’s also possible he might be surprised…if he had access to verified information.
I do a basic QC panel on all my wines prior to bottling, and for the next year I’ll add that information in to purchases for anyone who wants me to add it(just ask when you order). If the abv is a couple of tenths off, remember that my labels had to be ordered, with approved files, several months agead of bottling and that abv changes slightly over time, and sample variance is true in wine just like everything else. But the QC will represent the last sample taken before bottling.
An example of the information:
Sample ID: 20 Durant Chardonnay
Titratable Acidity 7.6 g/l
pH 3.03
Volatile Acidity (Acetic Acid) 0.28 g/L
Free Sulfur Dioxide (FSO2) 27 mg/L
Molecular SO2 (MSO2) 1.59 mg/L
L-Malic Acid 0.51 g/L
Glucose + Fructose 0.4 g/L
Ethanol 11.69 % vol
Cooperage was 21 months in 1x 2014 820L French oak puncheon and 1x 2018 600L French oak puncheon.
Not so hard at all…
Reasonable thoughts.
1: no idea, I am lost in that too.
3: technical data is part of a review as soon as it is included. Self evident.
The fact that technical data routinely does not align with subjective impressions is as much proof of error or inability of the critic to evaluate the wine correctly as anything else. Given that often tasting for publication is via a +100 wine slog, I would guess that the technical data could serve a purpose. Perhaps even aiding in the prevention of “Suckling-ized” wines.
-
Good question, but for “fairness” it would be best to spread payments out between regional critics so that the reviewer for Balkan wines gets the same amount of compensation as the reviewer for Bordeaux and Burgundy, adjusted for cost of living differences of course. Except that Burgundy wouldn’t be a paid position of course, because one of the 10,000 regional critics there would do it just to get the by-line.
-
Same as the funding Todd gets for hosting the Wine Berserker board. You do realize that he’s the optimal choice setting up the online distribution for this little thought experiment, right?
-
Objectivity doesn’t currently exist throughout the gamut of critical review. It’s also not necessary.
There was no better “critic” for Austria and Germany than Terry Theise(David Schildknecht is an equal and peer). The biggest issue with Terry’s “reviews” was that he only covered 30 or so producers. The fact that he sold those wines was a known quantity and could ve factored into choices. Additionally he knew that he had to not exaggerate too much in his reviews, but he knew those producers and their wines in depth and in a way that few critics know the regions they cover today. -
Agreed. Though as stated above technical data can help educated consumers. Most of all what needs to be refined is the quality of the critical process. No more than 25-30 wines per day. Deep knowledge of the specific region being reviewed.
This isn’t the situation today, except perhaps for Bordeaux, Burgundy, Napa, and Piedmont. Maybe the Rhone. Instead of massive reports where the top 30-40 scores(not wines) are the take away for most readers, smaller monthly or bi-monthly updates woukd allow better and more interesting writing. -
Have a sit down with them and walk them through the issues, like any normal job. Though whether current score creep is caused by the reviewer or requested by the publication(or pushed by the wineries) is anyone’s guess. This is where the non-profit model has to kick in. If circulation and excitement takes precedence then score creep is inevitable.
Greg is a bright brain and I enjoy his posts very much. As a Devil’s Advocate his posts here are quite valuable. But more likely this is a solution in search of a problem only for those who don’t utilize critics or are fine as is. There was a giant thread when the private Vinous email with the new ‘options’ was leaked. So probably just as many would like to see a change. I doubt this thread hurts anything that much.
I’ve already said that I will keep sending my subscription in to Vinous and supporting them abd the writers they employ. But I also think believeing that anything can be improved is really a Berserker quality. And doing it is something that Todd is really good at.
2 Likes
I love this post Rodrigo.
It splits me in two ways, your comparison of technical days and points is spot on. A score is just a measurement of the objective pleasure a wine gives a specific person at a specific time. You have to either be calibrated the same as that person, or able to contextualize their reading. But the fact that a score mimics the grading system we all used makes us all more likely to believe that we understand that data. But it’s probably most useful for giving people confidence, the way a 91 on CT translates as “I liked this wine” and 93 points is “I really liked this wine” for the poster, a critic’s 91 points gives most people a confidence of “I should like this wine” and a 95 from a critic says to many people, “I have to like this wine”.
The great thing about scores and technical data is they’re not required reading. Totally the same, they are elective. And 99% of the type of review this thread is about has a score, so why not the tech data too? Not counting the elephant in the room, that many wineries just don’t want too add them, often for good reason…you know, someone might not buy them because they were chaptalized…
But then there’s the 100% new oak at DRC, which as you noted most oakophobes woukd happily drink and enjoy. Or the 50% at Hudellot-Noellat in their GC wines. And I think maybe the technical data should be required reading, so we can not have to listen to people chirping about so many things that they don’t actually know.
Speaking of chaptalization, why do we always seem to assume that a wine that was chaptalized means that the site wasn’t good enough to get it ripe? It seems more likely to me that the fruit was picked when the acidity and flavor were correct and there was an appropriate margin to keep the site from getting too ripe(much more common in our era of global warming). Chaptalization is to move a wine with ripe flavor, mature tannins, and correct acidity into sugar balance (or because weather isn’t consistent and sugar and acids move independently from each other). Oh well…
1 Like