As the internet has matured, it seems to me we have entered an era of the democratization of wine. CellarTracker is a great example of this. In the ‘old’ days, the regal critic had regular appearances before His subjects to divine which wines were good and which wines were bad. The subjects dutifully listened, took the scriptures to the wine store, and bought the wines the Royal recommended.
Those days are waning rapidly. The problem with the Royal’s pronouncements, among others, was that they were a single data point in time (or two if you count barrel tastings). With the democratization have come many data points, on a wine’s evolution over time as people taste the wine in real time.
Skeptics of this democratization present arguments such as “I don’t trust anonymous palates;” akin to “beware of the unwashed masses.” But if ‘regular people’ are so unreliable, then ultimately, it calls into question whether there really is a fair way to evaluate wine. After all, if only the Royals, plus the ordained few (let’s call them The Elders) can judge a wine’s quality, of what relevance is it to everyone else?
Francois Mauss, of The Grand Jury Europeen, once told me (paraphrasing): “I want some regular wine enthusiasts on the GJE and not just people in the business, because I want the regular drinker’s opinions reflected in our judgments.” I thought this was a great point. After all, most of us do not drink our wines in the way a critic tastes–critics taste either up to 75 wines in a day (which favors the bold fruit bombs), or in the winery cellar with the winemaker commenting as they taste, or in an office setting with a bevy of dozens of wines in front of them. This is how The Royals taste, but not us.
It seems to me the democratization of wine is a great thing, and its something to celebrate.
The old guard doesn’t like it, because we’re about to see the destruction of Versailles. But I think its a force that can’t be stopped, and I think its terrific.
What does everyone else think?