Who is right? Same bottle rated 88-to-97 within 3 years

[Jon_Drummond]

Wine reviews are an opinion at a point in time.

Also, people make mistakes. Just like Tiger Woods can shoot it into the rough or OB, Michael Jordan lost some games etc…the pro wine writers make wrong calls on wines as well, they just make the wrong call less often than the rest of the population.

Not saying that anyone has made a mistake or what not with this wine, by the way.

[Nathan_Smyth]

“blocky”

Didn’t Vulgar Little Monkey invent that term?
.

[Greg_K]

You certainly put a lot of stock in scores.

I certainly do expect some amount of score correlation. But this example shows that is a bad expectation and I should not place as much emphasis on a professional critic’s note unless I really understand the critic.

I do think CT scores and notes are helpful. Now that I think about it, if CT had 20 tasting notes on the wine I would defer to CT as telling me which critic was ‘right’ on their notes and scores. A larger number of tasting notes can shed a directional view on a wine, and individual notes can be quickly scanned for history (e.g., what does the author usually like / drink / score in the same band). I find CT’s simplified tasting notes can be helpful with more core information (need for air, red vs. blue vs black fruit, prescence of alcohol, perceived acidity) versus many professional notes which can veer into haiku.

That said, we should be able to get more consistent information out of notes themselves, no? I thought we could post stock into at least this? If the “arc of development” throws off professional reviewers… how can one ever interpret the notes? I don’t understand many of these critic’s palates so I started threads… one major takeaway was that Neil has a British palate… and yet here is William writing a contrary note in the same British accent… which one is the proper Brit? (I imagine answer will be none/both/flawed poll!).

We’ve had this discussion before, but I think this is exactly wrong. Looking at the wine in question on this thread, we have very divergent scores among professional critics. And we have 6 data points from these critics who, I think we’d all agree, know quite a bit about wine. To me an aggregate of those views doesn’t provide anything meaningful, so 20 scores from people whose understanding of wine is necessarily variable isn’t any more helpful (and almost certainly less so). The primary example to me continues to be 2003 Chave; the wine has a 95.5 aggregate on CT, whereas you’d quite literally have to pay me to drink it. I think aggregating scores is the wrong way to approach wine generally - if you like something, seek more of it out (that includes producers and vintages). An aggregate score of 95.3 vs 93.2 based on random people tells me nothing about those wines. That would be true with 40 data points or 400, frankly - there are 71 notes on that 2003 Chave. Each additional score doesn’t change my view just because it increases it. The critic that is “right” is the one that aligns most with your palate.

I want to be clear, btw - I am not at all criticizing Cellar Tracker. I love Cellar Tracker, I just find the aggregation of points on wines to be a fundamentally useless endeavor and don’t assign points in my own notes (which are mostly meant for internal consumption anyway).

The proper Brit question is as good as the “true Scotsman” question

[Wes_Barton]

You certainly put a lot of stock in scores.

I certainly do expect some amount of score correlation. But this example shows that is a bad expectation and I should not place as much emphasis on a professional critic’s note unless I really understand the critic.

I do think CT scores and notes are helpful. Now that I think about it, if CT had 20 tasting notes on the wine I would defer to CT as telling me which critic was ‘right’ on their notes and scores. A larger number of tasting notes can shed a directional view on a wine, and individual notes can be quickly scanned for history (e.g., what does the author usually like / drink / score in the same band). I find CT’s simplified tasting notes can be helpful with more core information (need for air, red vs. blue vs black fruit, prescence of alcohol, perceived acidity) versus many professional notes which can veer into haiku.

That said, we should be able to get more consistent information out of notes themselves, no? I thought we could post stock into at least this? If the “arc of development” throws off professional reviewers… how can one ever interpret the notes? I don’t understand many of these critic’s palates so I started threads… one major takeaway was that Neil has a British palate… and yet here is William writing a contrary note in the same British accent… which one is the proper Brit? (I imagine answer will be none/both/flawed poll!).

We’ve had this discussion before, but I think this is exactly wrong. Looking at the wine in question on this thread, we have very divergent scores among professional critics. And we have 6 data points from these critics who, I think we’d all agree, know quite a bit about wine. To me an aggregate of those views doesn’t provide anything meaningful, so 20 scores from people whose understanding of wine is necessarily variable isn’t any more helpful (and almost certainly less so). The primary example to me continues to be 2003 Chave; the wine has a 95.5 aggregate on CT, whereas you’d quite literally have to pay me to drink it. I think aggregating scores is the wrong way to approach wine generally - if you like something, seek more of it out (that includes producers and vintages). An aggregate score of 95.3 vs 93.2 based on random people tells me nothing about those wines. That would be true with 40 data points or 400, frankly - there are 71 notes on that 2003 Chave. Each additional score doesn’t change my view just because it increases it. The critic that is “right” is the one that aligns most with your palate.

I want to be clear, btw - I am not at all criticizing Cellar Tracker. I love Cellar Tracker, I just find the aggregation of points on wines to be a fundamentally useless endeavor and don’t assign points in my own notes (which are mostly meant for internal consumption anyway).

The proper Brit question is as good as the “true Scotsman” question

So, this Chave example shows what we see with some wines on CT: They have a self-selected group of fans of the wines buying and drinking those wines, so the notes don’t represent a broad consensus view.

In a similar way, this wine in question, from what William said, is a stylistic outlier built to require age. That sort of wine will be met with misunderstanding put in front of an unsuspecting audience. It’s fair to assume their business model channels their wines to a niche of collectors who understand and appreciate what they’re doing - they’re customers know not to open their wines prematurely. You don’t see CT notes because the people who own bottles of that wine aren’t opening them yet.

[RichardFlack]

You know, i don’t really think this is too unusual (particularly with the 3 year time difference). 2 weeks ago, we were in Walla Walla and visited a Winery who’s wines had received scores as high as 97 from a well known reviewer who covers Washington. We tasted a pretty full line up, including the newly released new line high end wines they have just introduced. Everything for me was–meh. the best wine I might have scored 90 if I was a scorer, so that would give you scores in the 80’s that someone else had given a 97 to. We were tasting outside because of COVID, and there was a light breeze, which is often a problem for me as a taster. My conclusion was that the wines were not as good as touted, but also, it was just a bad day for the wines. So it happens–sometimes the wines, or the reviewers just have a bad day, and sometimes everything is perfect.

I thought wines taste better in the winery than elsewhere?

[john_stimson]

You know, i don’t really think this is too unusual (particularly with the 3 year time difference). 2 weeks ago, we were in Walla Walla and visited a Winery who’s wines had received scores as high as 97 from a well known reviewer who covers Washington. We tasted a pretty full line up, including the newly released new line high end wines they have just introduced. Everything for me was–meh. the best wine I might have scored 90 if I was a scorer, so that would give you scores in the 80’s that someone else had given a 97 to. We were tasting outside because of COVID, and there was a light breeze, which is often a problem for me as a taster. My conclusion was that the wines were not as good as touted, but also, it was just a bad day for the wines. So it happens–sometimes the wines, or the reviewers just have a bad day, and sometimes everything is perfect.

I thought wines taste better in the winery than elsewhere?

Well, you know, we weren’t actually IN the winery–we were outside of the winery.

[A_Gillette]

I think the Jean-Marc Bouley wines happen to speak incredibly loudly and profoundly to a small group of people and not others in a much larger group, and have for at least the last several years. There are a handful of folks, some professional and some not, who think of these wines as the best of class for volnay and pommard (I would point to Doug Barzelay’s comments about Bouley on his blog, and while he didn’t love the 16s I think his comments on the wines are particularly noteworthy given his depth of experience and his willingness to call it as he sees it without regard to hierarchy, label, or anything other than what is in the glass). I happen to be in that group and have spent the past several years accumulating as much as I can on the the theory that they are going to become hard to obtain and unaffordable, but alas now I think they are not. There are too many people who think of these wines as being in the range described by Neal and Jasper. While I haven’t popped any of my '15 fremiers, I’ve opened plenty of the '15s, including the Volnay Carelles this weekend, and I couldn’t be more thrilled to have so few people love these wines as I think they are wonderful to the point that I’d now rather have Bouley than Lafarge in Volnay.
A

[Greg_K]

So, this Chave example shows what we see with some wines on CT: They have a self-selected group of fans of the wines buying and drinking those wines, so the notes don’t represent a broad consensus view.

I don’t think that’s right - who’s the self-selected group here, Chave fans? 2003 Northern Rhone fans? Syrah fans? Hermitage fans? Prune juice fans? I’ve no idea; some of the scores that are at 90 are from people whose palates I somewhat align with, for example (but they just counteract the 100 point scores from others).
And again, for a “broad consensus view”, whose broad consensus are we looking for? I suspect the average drinker would be delighted at a bottle of the 2003 Chave. How is that helpful? I am not an “average” drinker.

In a similar way, this wine in question, from what William said, is a stylistic outlier built to require age. That sort of wine will be met with misunderstanding put in front of an unsuspecting audience. It’s fair to assume their business model channels their wines to a niche of collectors who understand and appreciate what they’re doing - they’re customers know not to open their wines prematurely. You don’t see CT notes because the people who own bottles of that wine aren’t opening them yet.

This is a 2015 Pommard, how is this a stylistic outlier?

[Wes_Barton]

So, this Chave example shows what we see with some wines on CT: They have a self-selected group of fans of the wines buying and drinking those wines, so the notes don’t represent a broad consensus view.

I don’t think that’s right - who’s the self-selected group here, Chave fans? 2003 Northern Rhone fans? Syrah fans? Hermitage fans? Prune juice fans? I’ve no idea; some of the scores that are at 90 are from people whose palates I somewhat align with, for example (but they just counteract the 100 point scores from others).
And again, for a “broad consensus view”, whose broad consensus are we looking for? I suspect the average drinker would be delighted at a bottle of the 2003 Chave. How is that helpful? I am not an “average” drinker.

In a similar way, this wine in question, from what William said, is a stylistic outlier built to require age. That sort of wine will be met with misunderstanding put in front of an unsuspecting audience. It’s fair to assume their business model channels their wines to a niche of collectors who understand and appreciate what they’re doing - they’re customers know not to open their wines prematurely. You don’t see CT notes because the people who own bottles of that wine aren’t opening them yet.

This is a 2015 Pommard, how is this a stylistic outlier?

How do you respond to people who aren’t agreeing with you? Not interested in debating the fine points of you missing the point.

I’m choosing to believe William (and now Alex) that this wine is a stylistic outlier. That’s William’s explanation, on this thread, like up above a bit, why this particular wine didn’t show it’s potential to critics who cover Pommard. Their experience with Pommard doesn’t tell the to look for or recognize what it is in this wine that would allow it to evolve into something great. ie. Outlier. If you don’t agree with that premise, ask William. If you don’t accept Alex’s take on this wine being an outlier, question him. Me pointing out some CT reviews are very skewed from general opinion on those wines does not negate the validity of an individual not liking a wine that has high CT ratings. It’s just a bizarre non sequitir.

[Greg_K]

So, this Chave example shows what we see with some wines on CT: They have a self-selected group of fans of the wines buying and drinking those wines, so the notes don’t represent a broad consensus view.

I don’t think that’s right - who’s the self-selected group here, Chave fans? 2003 Northern Rhone fans? Syrah fans? Hermitage fans? Prune juice fans? I’ve no idea; some of the scores that are at 90 are from people whose palates I somewhat align with, for example (but they just counteract the 100 point scores from others).
And again, for a “broad consensus view”, whose broad consensus are we looking for? I suspect the average drinker would be delighted at a bottle of the 2003 Chave. How is that helpful? I am not an “average” drinker.

In a similar way, this wine in question, from what William said, is a stylistic outlier built to require age. That sort of wine will be met with misunderstanding put in front of an unsuspecting audience. It’s fair to assume their business model channels their wines to a niche of collectors who understand and appreciate what they’re doing - they’re customers know not to open their wines prematurely. You don’t see CT notes because the people who own bottles of that wine aren’t opening them yet.

This is a 2015 Pommard, how is this a stylistic outlier?

How do you respond to people who aren’t agreeing with you? Not interested in debating the fine points of you missing the point.

There’s an easy solution here, and I’ll take it again - the mistake was responding in the first place.

[K_John_Joseph]

William doesn’t dish out 97s like candy and rating a Pommard Fremiers at 97 is guaranteed to raise some eyebrows and bring on a lot of "c’mon, really?"s. I do not know if it would ding that high for me, but I know William wouldn’t have put that out without being damn confident something special is going on there.

Thanks, Keith! And yes, while the score captures my sentiments about how the wine tasted in the glass, it is a happy coincidence that it happens to be consistent with my conviction that (a) the best wines are made by the best farmers and winemakers rather than by the most famous appellations, and (b) that there is no reason that Pommard Rugiens and Epenots should hit a scoring glass ceiling at 94-95, and all other Pommard 1er Crus have to situate a few points below that. As I try to explain in the accompanying article, when one sees where Fremiers is located (just below de Montille’s Rugiens Bas, which is arguably as good as it gets as a site in Pommard) and how Thomas farms it, it makes a bit more sense why the wine is so good.

Well I know who Alfert would assume was correct. I tend to think that if Meadows saw this potentially becoming a 94 with time, and that it had both depth and concentration, but also structure and acid, it sounds like it should have good bones to be something fantastic. Even if we assume that William’s score is a little high, I think there is a real case to be made that, based on the criticism, one should go out and buy some of this wine and give it a try.

And isn’t that the whole damn point? Using critics to assist with the deployment of limited financial resources on wines you don’t have extensive experience with?

[jhowe]

The scores and notes are all pretty similar with a couple of minor outliers. All are very good to excellent. Given variations in tasting including the maturity of the wine, I think an 88 vs 97 are both perfectly fine to buy a bottle if you are interested. Once tasted, you can decide whether you want more.

[lleichtman]

You know, i don’t really think this is too unusual (particularly with the 3 year time difference). 2 weeks ago, we were in Walla Walla and visited a Winery who’s wines had received scores as high as 97 from a well known reviewer who covers Washington. We tasted a pretty full line up, including the newly released new line high end wines they have just introduced. Everything for me was–meh. the best wine I might have scored 90 if I was a scorer, so that would give you scores in the 80’s that someone else had given a 97 to. We were tasting outside because of COVID, and there was a light breeze, which is often a problem for me as a taster. My conclusion was that the wines were not as good as touted, but also, it was just a bad day for the wines. So it happens–sometimes the wines, or the reviewers just have a bad day, and sometimes everything is perfect.

I thought wines taste better in the winery than elsewhere?

That’s the truth. We often bring wines back from the winery going, what were we thinking?

[William_Kelley]

I’m choosing to believe William (and now Alex) that this wine is a stylistic outlier. That’s William’s explanation, on this thread, like up above a bit, why this particular wine didn’t show it’s potential to critics who cover Pommard.

Well, I do think the wines are not the easiest to taste young, but I wouldn’t go so far as to describe them as being stylistic outliers, because that’s no especially unusual. An estate such as Lafarge also produces wines that are hard to read young (especially when you are working with the few drops Frédéric dispenses when one tastes from barrel, one of the more parsimonious pours along the Côte); and the difference I suppose is that Lafarge has a very long track record of excellence, which is reassuring, whereas Bouley is a newer creation. However, I take reassurance for the work Thomas is doing in the vineyards.

[CCoulson]

[(b) that there is no reason that Pommard Rugiens and Epenots should hit a scoring glass ceiling at 94-95, and all other Pommard 1er Crus have to situate a few points below that. As I try to explain in the accompanying article, when one sees where Fremiers is located (just below de Montille’s Rugiens Bas, which is arguably as good as it gets as a site in Pommard) and how Thomas farms it, it makes a bit more sense why the wine is so good.

Interesting point about the glass ceiling and good sites. Wondering William’s perspective on how wines from the line of vineyards running from Rugiens Bas in Pommard to Clos des Chenes/Caillerets in Volnay have changed with the warmer vintages since 15 onward?

Are the wines from slightly higher spots such as Clos des Chenes and Taillepieds developing new strengths?

[Howard_Cooper]

Nothing oxymoronic about it. Just because people have different tastes doesn’t mean they lack objectivity when tasting and reviewing a wine. Different strokes for different folks and all that.

We will just have to agree to disagree. If a critic is ‘not fond’ of overly ripe or underripe wines, he or she will invariably rate those wines ‘lower’ than wines that ‘they prefer’. This has happened again and again - and continues to. That is what I’m talking about . . . And this isn’t a knock against critics per se - it simply means ‘buyer beware’ unless your palates align.

Cheers.

Sure but that is purely a function of inherent bias of a particular individual. They can certainly still give an objective review. Perhaps the reviewer doesn’t score it as highly as someone who prefers overly ripe (or leaner wines), but it’s still an objective review. Almost all of the reviews for this wine are over 90 points, which despite the different inherent bias of the reviewers is reflective of a quality wine. I would argue that shows different wine professionals with different personal preferences being objective with their wine review.

I have no idea what an objective review is and why anyone would want one or how any reviewer could possibly give one. We all rate wines with our own palates. I have no idea how we could do differently. I have to believe that if you and I drank 10 wines from the same bottles sitting across from each other, we would have vastly different preferences. I see this all the time, even when drinking with people with similar palates to mine.

Also, it is so easy to rate a wine somewhere between 88 and 92 or so. When I read Burghound, most of the wines seem to be rated in this range. I find it infinitely more helpful when someone says I really like/hate a wine and follow it up with a score that follows the review. I hate it when I read a review (just did so a couple of days ago on CellarTracker) where someone trashes a wine and then gives it 87 points.

Having read William’s writings for some time now (both here and in the Wine Advocate), it is clear that he likes the wines and producers he likes. He clearly loves the wines from Bouley and, most interestingly, is giving high scores to top producers from obscure parts of Burgundy like Lorenzon and Dureuil-Janthial. He takes a stance, which I think is wonderful. I see the same thing with John Gilman, where I have read his reviews for many, many years. If he loves a wine, he rates it highly. If he hates a wines, he trashes it in the score.

Should you pay attention to these reviews. Taste a few wines that the reviewers praise and see if you like them. See if your palates align. For example, another person who really takes a stance on wines is Jeff Leve (who mostly rates Bordeaux). I tremendously admire him for this just like I do William and John. But, my palate does not align at all with Jeff’s so I really cannot buy wines based on his reviews. I have been buying wines based on John’s reviews for years (including from him when he was a wine broker). I love William’s approach to Burgundy, his emphasis on farming practices, etc., but cannot say yet how well I will like the wines he loves. I have enjoyed the few wines I have been on his reviews when young, but only have been reading his thoughts for a year or two and have not yet seen any of the wines I have bought based on his reviews mature.

In sum, the only thing that matters is whether YOU can find and buy wines YOU love based on the reviews of a critic. The notion that any wine score EVER is objective is incredibly ludicrous.

[R_Gilbane]

We will just have to agree to disagree. If a critic is ‘not fond’ of overly ripe or underripe wines, he or she will invariably rate those wines ‘lower’ than wines that ‘they prefer’. This has happened again and again - and continues to. That is what I’m talking about . . . And this isn’t a knock against critics per se - it simply means ‘buyer beware’ unless your palates align.

Cheers.

Sure but that is purely a function of inherent bias of a particular individual. They can certainly still give an objective review. Perhaps the reviewer doesn’t score it as highly as someone who prefers overly ripe (or leaner wines), but it’s still an objective review. Almost all of the reviews for this wine are over 90 points, which despite the different inherent bias of the reviewers is reflective of a quality wine. I would argue that shows different wine professionals with different personal preferences being objective with their wine review.

I have no idea what an objective review is and why anyone would want one or how any reviewer could possibly give one. We all rate wines with our own palates. I have no idea how we could do differently. I have to believe that if you and I drank 10 wines from the same bottles sitting across from each other, we would have vastly different preferences. I see this all the time, even when drinking with people with similar palates to mine.

Also, it is so easy to rate a wine somewhere between 88 and 92 or so. When I read Burghound, most of the wines seem to be rated in this range. I find it infinitely more helpful when someone says I really like/hate a wine and follow it up with a score that follows the review. I hate it when I read a review (just did so a couple of days ago on CellarTracker) where someone trashes a wine and then gives it 87 points.

Having read William’s writings for some time now (both here and in the Wine Advocate), it is clear that he likes the wines and producers he likes. He clearly loves the wines from Bouley and, most interestingly, is giving high scores to top producers from obscure parts of Burgundy like Lorenzon and Dureuil-Janthial. He takes a stance, which I think is wonderful. I see the same thing with John Gilman, where I have read his reviews for many, many years. If he loves a wine, he rates it highly. If he hates a wines, he trashes it in the score.

Should you pay attention to these reviews. Taste a few wines that the reviewers praise and see if you like them. See if your palates align. For example, another person who really takes a stance on wines is Jeff Leve (who mostly rates Bordeaux). I tremendously admire him for this just like I do William and John. But, my palate does not align at all with Jeff’s so I really cannot buy wines based on his reviews. I have been buying wines based on John’s reviews for years (including from him when he was a wine broker). I love William’s approach to Burgundy, his emphasis on farming practices, etc., but cannot say yet how well I will like the wines he loves. I have enjoyed the few wines I have been on his reviews when young, but only have been reading his thoughts for a year or two and have not yet seen any of the wines I have bought based on his reviews mature.

In sum, the only thing that matters is whether YOU can find and buy wines YOU love based on the reviews of a critic. The notion that any wine score EVER is objective is incredibly ludicrous.

Channeling some excellent Vizzini there.

You know I’m not sure if it’s just because it’s Thursday or if it’s the strength of your argument, but I’m now willing to concede that humans are incapable of objectivity and not to be trusted. Indeed a reliance on the opinions of others is a pervasive weakness infecting society. Teddy Roosevelt is probably turning in his grave right now.

[Howard_Cooper]

Where did I say that people are not to be trusted? You have to read a reviewer for a while and see if their palates align with yours - this includes reading notes from people on this board. Good reviewers are pretty consistent, within the context of their palates.

But, please go ahead and believe that wine reviewers are all objective and that when they rate a wine like everyone else they are right and when they buck the consensus they are wrong. It is your money you will be wasting.

[Shan_A]

Following Bouley over the past 4 years, I think William was right. I haven’t tasted the 2023 though.

@zohowine on Instagram: "2023 Pommard 1er Cru Les Rugiens just snagged 💯 from...