Vintage charts - an alternative

[Arv_R]

I think this is just a question of whether people have ‘relative’ preferences or ‘absolute’ preferences.

In general I think its easier for people to get their arms around relative measures, since we think all the time about whether A is better than B.

It’s harder (I believe) for people to know if both A and B are good , since one still needs to have some anchor on what ‘good’ is.

======

If we were using some kind of relative ranking system it would really hide how great the last decade plus of Sauternes has been.

[NoahR]

Mark - a “gentleman’s C” is really an F but grades are inflated up to a C just so it doesn’t look like the student failed. There was a lot of talk about this surrounding George W. Bush’s college grades at Yale.

Sounds like, in fact, 2013 would be exactly what I meant by a Gentleman’s C. And that begs the question of what your overall scale is: A-F, or A-C, where B is average and C sucks.

[Mark_Golodetz]

Aha!

This is the one

A-C, where B is average and C sucks.

And thanks for the explanation about W

[A_S_K_R_O_B_A_C_K]

@Markus S

As for S. Rhone, 2007 produced a lot of goopy wines and I wouldn’t put it up at the top…middle perhaps.

I’m pretty surprised at your ranking 2007 first in the Rhone, Dan. I would put it near the very bottom for the same reason Markus states, at least in the south. Not too much experience with 07 in the north.

[Dennis_Kanagie]

Where’s Joe when you need him? His binary ranking / rating system is all you need. 1 = buy, 0 = don’t buy.

[Gerhard_P]

@Dennis Kanagie

Where’s Joe when you need him? His binary ranking / rating system is all you need. 1 = buy, 0 = don’t buy.

So all of my bottles I bought are equally good …

[Corey_N]

@NoahR

@Corey N.

IMO the most useful chart to compare vintages would not include a ranking but rather to plot attributes on an X/Y axis. So you could have ripeness v structure (or any two variables) and plot them as appropriate. For me anyway, that would be far more helpful than seeing a number or a ranking. For instance, while 2009/2010 Bordeaux might be considered two of the best vintages in recent years, they seem fairly similar with the former being more flamboyant. You can’t get that with a number or a ranking.

YMMV.

Now this I like. Reminds me of an off-debated chart of Burgundy producers by “modernness” on the x-axis and I think oakibess on the y-axis.

Thanks. I think it’s more helpful because any ranking of A vs B (including a numeric score) doesn’t actually give you any insight into what the wine is actually like, nor does it account for differences in the palates of even experienced wine drinkers. Stats plotted on an x/y axis are becoming increasingly popular in soccer, when comparing the attributes of different teams.

[Howard_Cooper]

@Gerhard P.

@Howard Cooper

I think ratings (without the fluff of overrating) gives more info. The fifth or seventh best vintage in one decade may be much better or worse than the fifth or seventh best vintage of another decade.

For example, the worst vintages of the 70s in Bordeaux could be ranked as 1973, 1974, 1977, 1972. The worse four in the 1980s might be 1981, 1984, 1980, 1987. The is, IMHO, a huge difference between 1981 and 1973.

Agree generally.

Did you mean 1981 is the worst in the 80ies - or is it 1987?
(IMHO the worst is 1984)

I am positing that 1973 and 1981 are the seventh best vintages of their respective decades and arguing that there is a big difference between the two

[ColinH]

@Ian Sutton

These days I’d definitely find descriptions of vintage ‘style’ (e.g. lighter & leaner or tannic: potentially overly so) more useful, though they are still awful generalisations.

At least with such descriptions, it involves less of the authors prejudices, something that becomes dangerous when leading critics have strong preferences towards particular styles. In those scenarios points (and rankings) can be counter-productive.

Same here. I find myself viewing the Jancis Robinson write-ups more often than anything else these days. But yeah, very much a generalization and just a data point when browsing.

[Robert.A.Jr]

@A S K R O B A C K

@Markus S

As for S. Rhone, 2007 produced a lot of goopy wines and I wouldn’t put it up at the top…middle perhaps.

I’m pretty surprised at your ranking 2007 first in the Rhone, Dan. I would put it near the very bottom for the same reason Markus states, at least in the south. Not too much experience with 07 in the north.

Would make sense, as he picked 2009 as top of Medoc. His tastes, of course.

[Gerhard_P]

@Howard Cooper

…

For example, the worst vintages of the 70s in Bordeaux could be ranked as 1973, 1974, 1977, 1972. The worse four in the 1980s might be 1981, 1984, 1980, 1987. The is, IMHO, a huge difference between 1981 and 1973.

@Howard Cooper

…

I am positing that 1973 and 1981 are the seventh best vintages of their respective decades and arguing that there is a big difference between the two

Ok, thanks, now it´s clear that you listed them from 7th to 10th position.

IMHO the difference in quality between 1981 and 1987 (or in my opinion between 1981 and 1984) is far greater
than between 1973 and 1972 … (or 1973-74), 1973/1974/1977/1972 all being very weak, while 1981 produced some outstanding wines.

[Paul_Jaouen]

I hated everything I’ve tasted from 2007 Southern Rhone so I will just take your chart and turn it upside down.

[Mark_Golodetz]

…and probably 2004, one of my favorite Chateauneuf vintages

[Dennis_Kanagie]

@Paul Jaouen

I hated everything I’ve tasted from 2007 Southern Rhone so I will just take your chart and turn it upside down.

I bet you’re a Sushi hater too!

[Gerhard_P]

@Paul Jaouen

I hated everything I’ve tasted from 2007 Southern Rhone so I will just take your chart and turn it upside down.

So good luck with 2008 …

If he´d made the charts 2001-2010 so your favorite would be 2002 …

[Paul_Jaouen]

@Mark Golodetz

…and probably 2004, one of my favorite Chateauneuf vintages

I like 2004.

[Dan_Kravitz]

to all:

Glad I stimulated some discussion.

I used to sell Bordeaux futures and tasted every spring. As mentioned, I have little confidence in my ratings of the Medoc in general and more specifically 2014s, as it is based on just a small number of Crus Bourgeois and not a single Classified to date. However I tasted a number of Classified 2013s.

A agree that the broader your geographic range, the less accurate your rankings will be. I taste (and drink) a lot of Chateauneuf besides Pegau, which I import to most of the U.S. My Pegau rankings would be somewhat different.

I plead guilty to liking ripe red wines, thus 2007 southern Rhone and 2009 Medoc. Again as mentioned, your mileage will vary (emphasis added).

This concept is probably more useful for people who already have substantial knowledge of the region (or sub-region, or specific property).

I very much like the axis idea.

To veer way way off topic on the ‘Gentleman’s’ C question: I do not find it particularly interesting that George W. Bush got 'C’s at Yale, nor that he said so publicly. I do find it interesting that he was admitted to Yale in the first place, and even more interesting that he was then admitted to Harvard’s MBA program. So I propose the ‘Legacy Law’:

‘Educational institutions that give preference in admissions to relative of alumni shall not be eligible to receive federal funds.’

Dan Kravitz