Perhaps it’s simply that they would never do anything else if they did this for every producer?
I don’t understand why you want this. It sounds like you just want a robot where you insert wine and get a numeric score out at the end. Context matters. Wine doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If the wines no longer rise to the level of their lofty reputation, then it’s worth calling that out and trying to understand why.
It kind of feels like you’re trying to make all of this out to be much more sinister than it actually is.
7 Likes
The funniest aspect of this thread is that the wines still got scores in the mid 90s and some people are acting as if the scores were in the low 80s. “How will SQN recover from this devastating 3 point drop in scores?!?!’”
6 Likes
I think some people misuse the word “impartial”; there is no indication in any post on this thread that there is any kind of undue influence on the WA because two of the reviewers may have, at some point, discussed a wine. (Questions of impartiality and Independence are best left to other publications, I think.) That certain wines are reviewed somewhat differently is also not an indication of a lack of impartiality; treating different things differently doesn’t make it unfair. I don’t think there’s a good reason to expect a mass produced negociant Bourgougne to be reviewed exactly the same way as the top Chevalier; it’s a waste of time and process (do I want William or Antonio Galloni to spend as much on the Bichot Bourgogne as he does on the Gibourg Clos Vougeot? Why?). As a much smarter man than I once said, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. What’s being described above isn’t impartiality, it’s a decontextualized double blind; that is not the same thing.
William can, of course, correct me if I misread him, but my understanding from my experience with reviewer publications is that there’s a basic editorial process at work. If one reviewer finds a surprising or unexpected issue at a producer, it wouldn’t be unusual for an editor to look in (often requested). That does not mean the editor will simply overrule the initial reviewer, but having two reviewers (especially if a more experienced reviewers is involved) is often better. To paraphrase a recent interview, wines don’t just fall out of coconut trees, they exist in context. For example, de Vogue showed well out of barrel for years - if a new reviewer gave it very high scores on that basis (it’s old vine Musigny!), it would be neither impartial (wrong word, but still) nor in any way inappropriate for an experienced reviewer or editor to suggest a reconsideration of the score on the basis that the wines never show as well from bottle.
I think there’s a certain level of cynicism from some people that has led them to think that wine scores are just designed to please producers, so they read any contextualized reviews in this way. Personally, I think context is good - otherwise reviews would be snapshots of barrel tastings, which are often not especially useful (in many cases these are not even finished wines!). But, even moreso, I think this thread shows that while many consumers claim they want producers to receive the low scores they deserve, it’s a lot more complicated. Those low scores, when given to a producers those consumers like, make those consumers quite unhappy! They like that producer, know that producer, have a cellar full of that producer’s wines and have been drinking those wines for years. They have effectively been told they have bad taste and their wines may not be worth that much - not what anyone wants to hear! So sure, everyone wants low scores, but for producers they don’t like. I think this as much as anything else leads to a certain smoothing in scores, rather than the fear of getting blacklisted (what’s one domaine/chateau?) or advertising revenue. This thread now has so many posts, and SQN still received a 95! The horror 
9 Likes
Is there data to support your short lived windows for drinking your disqualified wines?
Why such a limited window for Andremily, SQN, and not so much Saxum in your opinion specifically?
if you can access his reviews - reading the discussion by him explains why he believes Saxum is different from Andremily and SQN.
Data? You want like a scientific report or something?
You’re drawing a lot of inferences from my initial remark, which was to the effect that the TWA team taste wines together and discuss them. That isn’t about reviewing particular wines, it’s about training together as a team. I didn’t think I needed to reply, as what we taste in internal training sessions is our business as far as I’m concerned, but seeing what you’ve come up with, perhaps I should have done.
1 Like
Hi Brian,
I appreciate your perseverance, but selective quoting of my opening paragraph, omitting the final sentence, distorts the meaning quite dramatically. When I concluded with, “However, we believe that for wine criticism to merit its name, and to have any enduring relevance for consumers, we need to reevaluate wines and wineries afresh, critically, each and every time we review them,” I think I was quite clear, as I was in my subsequent clarifying reply to you, about our adherence to the fundamental principle of reviewing the wine in the glass as we find it.
Best,
William.
5 Likes
I have asked whether the wines develop tertiary notes over time and the only answer I got here was one no. The winery has now been around for 30 years or so, right? That is a pretty long time. Have you ever had one that develops tertiary notes? Do you drink your SQN wines or hold them for 50 years in the hopes that they develop tertiary notes? Really, if you are drinking them before they develop tertiary notes, developing tertiary notes must be pretty much irrelevant to your enjoyment of the wines. So, what is the point of this comment.
Robert, you love a number of Loire reds and under the radar Bordeauxs like Ferriere, Cantemerle, etc. I am sure you find it nice when these wine are rated highly, but does it really impact your buying of them at all. I similarly love the wines from under the radar producers like (when I bought them) the wines of Jacky Truchot. For many years, these wines were trashed by Robert Parker and even by Allen Meadows. Still bought them because I loved them.
Other than for flipping, why does it really matter to a lover of the wines of SQN what they are rated? Lower ratings have great benefits - the prices go down over time and the wines get more affordable. Is this just about flipping? I know I hate it that some of my favorite Burgundy producers have been discovered (sometimes I long for the days of Pierre Rovani ratings when the greatest producers did not receive the highest scores and the wines remained affordable) and the prices have gone through the roof.
2 Likes
I’ve enjoyed following this thread. It’s an interesting topic (not the SQN part so much as the larger context) and many thoughtful comments. In particular I appreciate the continued willingness of William Kelley to engage here and hopefully Matthew Luczy will as well. I learn a lot from the many ITB people who spend time here.
I don’t know why I’m always surprised by the way a few people respond to and message about topics and the demands/expectations some people feel like they are entitled to. As someone well into middle age, it still catches me off guard although I should be accustomed to it. I am impressed by the measured responses William (and others) have made to certain posts/posters even though we are well past the point of reasoned arguments being received and acknowledged even if there are differences of opinion. Kudos to those with the patience to keep trying.
20 Likes
The questions of longevity and peak drinking windows for SQN and/or Rhys do not have any answers. No matter how broad and deep your tasting experience, no matter how thorough your book knowledge and scientific background, nobody knows the answers to these questions. The oldest Rhys wines are 20 years; SQN 30. I have enough experience with Rhys (but definitely not SQN) to know that it’s too early for me to give more than wild guesses for longevity and peaks.
I remember Robert Parker saying (in one of his thankfully rare attempts at humor) “The older I get, the younger I like 'em (wines, that is)”. I find that as I have aged, I am preferring older, not younger wines. I open older Rhys from my dwindling stash infrequently and almost always find the wines young and vigorous. Sometimes I think they’re so good I should just keep pulling corks until they’re gone, but I also want to know how they will evolve.
I’ve got an '09 Rhys Alpine Chardonnay on tap for this evening, will try to post tomorrow.
4 Likes
Something which seems not to be getting enough attention here (Brian G mentioned it above though) is the vintage. Unless I have misunderstood, this is just a review of one rather poor vintage. Seems like it was a very tough vintage with extreme drought shutting down vines in many areas, with all of the associated problems that brings. This seems like it could be a real problem if one is trying to retain any kind of freshness. Some Napa wines aren’t even being made in '22. Obviously this is not Napa, but still reflective of the kinds of problems seen in CA in this vintage.
It then seems fair to assume that the vintage is a factor in the drinking window advice. That isn’t unusual at all. Poorer vintages generally have shorter drinking windows. Fairly standard. Maybe he’ll like next year’s better. Maybe not.
1 Like
Yeah, I felt about that movie the way John Gilman felt about the 2010 Pavie.
I 100% failed to understand it.
Just want to say thanks for jumping back in here - you certainly don’t owe anyone explanations but what you have provided should prove of value to all.
Cheers
2 Likes
This framing is too simplistic. For most consumers a “highly rated wine” is an easier choice; retailers advertise wine scores for a reason. But even for very discerning consumers critical opinions matter - those consumers will take notice of very high or very low ratings (for the couple of critics whose palate I align with, I would!). It was no great feat of courage for Burgundy drinkers to ignore Rovani, but that doesn’t mean all critics are created equal.
I understand the temptation of declaring critics generally irrelevant in favor of one’s own palate (the ultimate judge, after all), yet the very presence of this thread shows that’s obviously not the case.
(Edit to note that I hadn’t seen Matt’s post on this topic before replying to Howard. Additionally, I removed needless snarky comment.)
I thought my point was pretty clear.
Rethinking SQN’s scores is fine with me. But shortening the drinking window is non-sensical when the wines seem to be aging at a glacial pace. Twenty year old bottles of the same varieties, from the same vineyards, present as young wines. So what is the reason for the short window?
FTR, I have never been on SQN’s list. I’ve enjoyed a few bottles, but they aren’t in my wheelhouse. However I’m an omnivinovore, and I’m happy to try anything, and think one can find the right time and place to drink most everything.
1 Like
I’m wondering if either of you read Matt’s last post where he addressed this - from his perspective.
Cheers
1 Like