I often find the question behind the question is: as a person starting from scratch, or close to it, with limited direct experience, limited time and a fixed amount of money, how do I optimize my wine drinking path for maximum enjoyment at the best price?
Wine scores are seductive, as they can lead to an overconfident game of tic-tac-toe: “marquee name wine that “everyone” reveres has a score of 94 pts and a huge price tag → there are other wines with the same scores at more modest price tags → seems like the smart thing to do, as a person who’s tasted neither, is to drink the cheaper one”
Unfortunately (I would say it’s fortunate, really…) , scores are not a short cut or other cheat code to optimizing the game described above. People have run analyses on scores to try and glean answers like ones you are asking (read the Journal of Wine Economics for some papers) but they don’t work for the myriad reasons mentioned in the thread.
For me, this is a good thing. It’s an experiential journey. The cheat code is in plain sight: try a lot of different stuff to have a pov - that’s how those people are able to assign a score to begin with.
Edit:
I think the question for many is, as I said above, what do I do when I haven’t tasted any of the wines? In a world of nose bleed level prices, this is a very relevant question (of which I know you are very aware).
Not anymore. Recent burgundy is much more ready to drink early. Even the faiveley is good to go on release now. DRC Corton has always been ready to drink early.
I think this is really a good question indeed. Though I do not have experiences with super expensive wine scoring 92 like DRC Corton, I’ve had experiences with village wine from known producers that scores like 88-90. I think there are many layers of why people do not agree with critics score and find it useless, but I think the main thing is that a lot of burgundy drinkers have preference to certain styles and that often matter to them more than “objective quality”.
I’m in the camp that thinks “objective quality” can be defined in a certain way - length, balance, complexity, potential and concentration, which is somewhat an industry standard to my understanding. But there are many wines that do meet these qualities yet Burgundy drinkers do not enjoy. For example, you can make red Burgundy that looks and smells like Syrah, which might be objectively good (esp in blind) but subjectively many Burg drinkers wouldn’t want because it doesn’t have typicity of the place and grape variety.
Many people buy 89 point village wine from a top producer that has a style they look for but maybe does not have a long finish that makes it 93 points wine in the critics score. In their view, this is a great wine because it simply gives a lot of pleasure to them.
I do wish more critics give more info on the producer style in the tasting note, for this reason.
The other issue is that some people rate based on the “objective quality” while the others rate based on “how much pleasure it provided today”. So there’s definitely inconsistency in rating based on who rates it. I think many cellartracker reviews are the latter while critics lean to the former but it’s a little more mixed.
I found William Kelley reviews lean to the objective quality and tries to give justice to different styles of wine. Jasper Morris reviews are more on objective quality accounting for potential when in barrel but after that it seems more about how much he liked. Pretty common to see Jasper gives a really high score for a ripe year and then he gives much lower score when he tastes from a bottle a few years later. I don’t follow Burghound but I’ve read he has strong preference to certain styles but his scoring rather relative (eg no 95+ for a village wine), so it’s more subjective rating I’d say.
Lots of good serious advice through the free jokes here and there (guilty!). I think we are getting better at answering new posters on WB!
I would have linked to that “younger crowd on WB” thread but couldn’t find it easily.
It’s the same it’s always been for any subject, including AI summaries, use it for what it’s worth. Any kind of review coming from a “trusted” (by you) source is worth gold. Other reviews are hints to look more into it.
I get a hot tip from @Julian_Marshall from Loire, I’m interested. Any post by @Otto_Forsberg will give you as much info as you could dream of on a wine, including good numerical assessment and value assessment (price at purchase not market pricing). Bordeaux from @Robert.A.Jr or @Mark_Golodetz, yes please. Champagne from @Keith_A_k_e_r_s and @Warren_Taranow, of course. Loire and Rhone from @LasseK yes! From @Robert.A.Jr and @Marc_Frontario, you better like barnyard… sometimes! Anything coming from @melvinyeo@brodie_thomson, I’ll read and use as buying guide. Burgundy, I seem to be 100% @Dennis_Atick and @Steve_McL and mostly @MChang whenever he drinks something I can get my hands (and wallet) on! Old and new stuff from anywhere @Jeremy_Holmes. Old Cali? I wish I was @Rich_Brown. And the list goes on.
As people pointed out, see a score and description? Think you’ll like the wine? Buy it, try it. Put the assessment and correlation in your algorithm and move on. Keep in mind the bottle might not be indicative of the vintage. No great wines, only great… Eventually, you’ll have your list. Either buddies, online people or pros. And then the issue is managing wallet vs impulse.
Just remember it’s a fun hobby and life pleasure and that’s all it is. And moderation, albeit a very rare colleague, should often be listened to.
A really poignant question. I do believe that scores are the great equalizer. Critics can write paragraphs of flowery language that leaves you a little unsure as to how they feel. I like a score from a critic because IMO it forces them to tell us;
Do you like it ?
How much ?
Also domaines can use their centuries old reputation to institutionalize higher prices. Last point, While there are qualitative differences in wine there is a large part that is subjective. Personally I prefer my red Burgundy to be more ethereal and less about power.
There is nothing objective about a wine score unless the wine is flawed. The most you can hope for from a reviewer is a consistent approach and a consistent vocabulary for expressing his views on the wines (s)he tastes. As for the score, I treat it as an expression of the reviewer’s relative excitement about the wine. Take it for what it is worth, which frankly isn’t a lot.
