Reviews depend on wine characteristics

The Wine Spectator top 100 came out Monday. I’m sorry to tell you I did not do as well as last year in my guesses. I only reviewed five of the top 11, and my aggregate was down also. I thought there would be more Oregon Pinot Noir and Spanish in the top 40. Of my picks, Charles Smith Kung Fu Girl 2015 was chosen No. 45, and No. 51 Michel Chapoutier’s Bila Haut Roussilon ’14 made me proud because the respective price points of $12 and $15 put them well within everyone’s budget. No. 74 Bodega Norton Malbec Reserva ’14 at $19 also fills that bill. Hamilton Russell Chard 2015, No. 11, $48 and Orin Swift Machete 2014, No. 6, $37 are fair buys. If you liked any of these, there is no downside to buying in right now. In most cases, prices surge after the magazine hits the households at the end of December. I get an expedited release due to subscribing to WS online.

Regulars are aware I am often critical of some of the writers at WS. However, there is a ton of wonderful stuff in it each year. I enjoy comparing their reviews to my favs, Jancis Robinson, Tony Galloni and Tanzer, plus my own. Although I often recommend choosing a guru whose taste best reflects yours to help research new-to-you locales or varietal wines, it is always worthwhile to gather as many opinions as you have time for, then trust your own buds.

The past few weeks, I’ve received more email traffic than usual. I replied to all. One writer was quite critical of one of my selections from a few weeks back, the Folie a Deux Dry Creek Sonoma Zin. He also wrote that my writing is difficult to follow. I hope my response satisfied his several points.

As to my writing style, I would appreciate any thoughts from others. Don’t ever hesitate to email me with questions or comments. All are welcome, even those who disagree; email chjonmc@yahoo.com. Anyhow, one point made was regarding scores. Please keep in mind that all my scores reflect pricing. Many critics claim they don’t let price affect their reviews. While I’m not questioning their honesty, I often wonder why you see so few $10-$15 wines with scores north of 91 points. I was reminded by this email. So, I checked out the top 100 list just as an anecdotal verifier. Of those 100, eight were in the price range, and all but five were rated 90 points. Three that cost $15 were rated 91. OK, you may ask, so what does that mean?

Typically, wine is reviewed by its characteristics. Basic would be Appearance; Aroma or Bouquet (aroma is singular, bouquet more than one aroma); Flavor; and Finish. As the rater becomes more experienced, each of these four areas will differentiate into more diverse and specific subgroups. Based on this generally accepted ideation, no matter how many subgroups may be in any of the four, no one of the four main groups is ever worth more than 25 percent of the score. In fact, if one category is overwhelmingly great, the wine may be out of balance. Therefore, it follows, when you add a group based on price, you may move your scores as much as 20 percent. I.e., a wine is rated 100 points or 4 times 25. However, the price due to demand is extremely high, gathering no price points, so its score would be 80. This has never happened in my observation but is illustrative. No matter; a four-category, 100-point wine will always have great value, usually above 90 percent of the score in price range.

I also strongly believe that few readers, including myself, are such sophisticates that they would rather purchase one 95-point Screaming Eagle 2008 at $2,195/bottle rather than a case of 12 95-point Dunn Howell Mountain 2008 at $2,400. I’m not even sending you there. Look into the 2013 Silverado Solo Cab.

Their best since 2008; both were rated 93 points. You can buy two cases for around $2,200. For cellarers, see the 97-point Kapcsandy Grand Vin 2014 at $400/bottle. I realize these are big numbers, but let me say for big-buck buckaroos if you’re drinking, go Kapcsandy, and if you are speculating, go Screaming.