Broken record: In Quebec, wine and spirits are sold through a monopoly. Good and bad, pros and cons, blablabla.
What this provides is a view of what is popular or what works for most people. We don’t get to shop in specialized wine stores that carry mostly the “good stuff”. You buy your plonk and your first growths or grands crus in the same store.
Considering that I don’t look at scores and very rarely professional reviews (I’m not subscribed to any publications), I am sometimes wondering who does and if they really do still hold a sway over what sells. I know that at some point Robert Parker could move the needle with a mere comment (or so was I told) but what is the impact of wine publications nowadays? From what I’ve read on WB, it would seem that wine publications are struggling to make money and that they don’t have the impact that they used to.
Well, it seems that in Quebec, it’s still very much looked at.
Once a year, the provincial monopoly issues a 2-part Wine Spectator Top 100 marketing event. It’s basically a curated selection (not all 100 wines) of the WS Top 100 along with marketing communications around it (emails, web page, etc.). What normally ends up selling the fastest are the most expensive wines and the least expensive wines of that selection.
If our dear monopoly invests the time and effort to structure an offer around this list, I gather that the Wine Spectator has an important impact over what sells.
I was surprised to see the following wines as part of the 2020 Top 100 since I’d never heard of them before:
Golan Heights Winery Yarden Cabernet Sauvignon 2017
Vins El Cep Gelida Brut Gran Reserva 2015
Invivo X Sarah Jessica Parker Marlborough 2019 (sold out quickly)
Are they legit (pun not intended with the number 13 of that list)?
I wouldn’t make any buying decisions based on this list.
First, WS’s ratings generally are worthless.
Second, they don’t include many or any small production wines, because they only want to include things that are relatively available, at least in the US market. And why should they include wines their readers won’t be able to get?
Third, it’s pretty clear that they try to have a diverse list, with many regions represented, although in some years when a particular vintage has received a lot of praise, the list can be weighted toward a particular region.
Finally, like most magazine “best of/top 100” lists, the WS’s is in part an effort to get attention for WS and (one can surmise) to curry favor with producers and distributors (another reason to include lots of large-production wines).
Second, they don’t include many or any small production wines, because they only want to include things that are relatively available, at least in the US market. And why should they include wines their readers won’t be able to get?
They probably sell out so quick they don’t need to advertise in the spectator!
I have had Yarden before, not that vintage. Bought a couple bottles during a trip to Israel. At the time at least was one of the top wineries in Israel. Margalit IIRC was another
The WS Top 100 is VERY influential, though not to the general member of this board. If a winery gets on the Top 100, it will move the needle as far as sales and traffic.
Every year, folks DO post about that list when it’s released - and my guess is that more folks on this board are influenced by it then most think. Remember that this has become a pretty ‘large’ wine board, and as such, there are all kinds of folks with different interests in wine here. And also remember that the vast majority of folks on this board are lurkers and rarely if ever post. It’s therefore difficult to make generalizations . . .
This list impacts retailers more than anyone. It helps them move wine. It also boosts the resale value for the #1 wine quite a bit. In most years we wouldn’t care. Sometimes they do pick something that we would care about and that wine becomes hard to get or way overpriced overnight. Last year’s 2010 Ygay Reserva Especial for instance was one that stung me. I kept thinking I needed to pick up a bottle or two for myself right around the time the WS list came out. So I never have.
I have had Yarden before, not that vintage. Some other wines as well. Virtually all of their wines feel super-ripe, flabby and drenched in excessive oak. I guess there was some fruit in their Chardonnay, but I didn’t detect any underneath all that wood.
Can’t remember ever having a single bottle of Yarden I liked.
I get the Naysayers with WS and I certainly place little credibility to their scores (rarely see a score under 85), but having said that the one thing I have noticed noticed and like is that they very rarely give out 100’s, which I appreciate. Recently I noticed they gave Macdonald a 98 and the others I noted are Monte Bello (97) and Spottswoode (96), 2 of my favorite 3 Cali Cabs along with Piper. I have a bit of Macdonald, but have not tried yet.
Wine Spectator is ubiquitous. If some random person in the U.S. is going to read about wine it’s probably going to be Wine Spectator. The Top 100 list definitely helps sell the wines that appear thereon, and {all of Cris’s comments, above}.
John and Chris sum up my feelings as well. It’s the big marketing cherry on the Sunday for wineries that utilize Spectator ratings. I’m happy for the Willamette Valley wineries that make the list, and for the success it brings them.
Fair points Larry. My comment was a bit of snark because of all the “who cares about the WS Top 100” comments when the list comes out each year. I recognize that those are the vocal minority of the overall wine consuming public.
WS does occasionally score below 85. Parker never did. Don’t know about AG or JD. It’s pretty much like grad school. C is failing. And… my impression is that hitting the
TOP 100 will help that vintage sell out, but the halo rarely carries over to subsequent years.
Impact on the day-to-day sales of higher rated wines is astonishing….newer wine drinkers want someone else, someone with professional weight to verify their choices; their palate. 30 years of retail wine sales largely buttresses this sad truth. Years ago Antonio Galloni endeared himself to me forever by delivering a devastatingly worded 80 point review on the 2013 Caymus Cabernet that Robert Parker gifted a 94! Far too many times I recall suspiciously elevated scores for wines that advertised heavily.
The WS 100 is based on ratings, availability, value, and some type of “X Factor” which means for me it is hard to tell why one wine makes it and one wine that is as good a value and rated as highly does not. It is a confusing list for me in general. Regardless, it does bring attention to some good wines and there is no doubt that it drives sales and prices which is good for the industry I suppose.
I personally dislike that it jacks up the price of some of the great QPR wines that I “discovered” prior to their publicity, but ultimately, its good for the producers so I guess that I just need to deal with that versus begrudging the value to the producers.
Of the various main stream print publications about wine, Wine Spectator has the most interesting material IMO and is highly educational for me. I will accept my issues with the WS100 and enjoy learning more about wine.
Agreed. In my early collecting days in college/grad school, I worked part-time in wine retail and discovered very quickly that while most collectors were reading Parker at the time (mid to late 90s), it was Wine Spectator ratings- and the Top 100 List in particular- that really moved volume whether a $10 or $100 wine.
That holds true to this day. Whatever one may think of it, in the United States the WS Top 100 List is the most important driver of wine sales among all of the wine review publications.
Wine spectator may be very influential in the USA but it surely isn’t here. Authors like Meadows, Neal Martin, William Kelley, Sarah Marsh, Bettane § Dessauve, Jasper Morris : YES. WS ? Rubbish !