Do higher-priced wines always get better ratings?

Recently, longtime reader Bill T. wrote asking me about wines under $20 and if I thought higher-priced offerings were generally given better ratings. Both are excellent questions.

Following is a listing of top 10-rated wines priced $10-20. Frequent readers will note many have been written up here. Veramonte Cabernet Sauvignon Reserva 2006, 92 points, $10; Pillar Box Padthaway Red 2008, 91 points, $12.50; Strong Arms Shiraz 2006, 91, $10; Penfolds Koonunga Hill Shiraz-Cabernet 2006, 91, $8 ; Kim Crawford SB, 90, $14; Mirassou Pinot Grigio 2007, 90, $8. Terrific values are: Louis Martini Sonoma Cabernet Sauvignon 2006, 90 + 2 price points (pp), $13; Cambria Julia's Vineyard Pinot Noir 2009, 92 (1 pp), $20; Chateau Ste. Michelle Indian Wells Cabernet Sauvignon 2008, 93 (2 pp) $15; Magnificent Wine Co. the Originals Syrah 2008, 91 (2 pp), $15 (reminds of Crozes Hermitage).

Regarding price driving ratings: Most reviewers claim they don't let price drive their opinion.

However, at many of the blind tastings I attend, the wine is flighted by price and varietal name.

I am not an authority when discussing psychology, but it seems strange to flight by price then claim it does not reflect in the ratings. Often, following the flighted tasting panels, the winners of each category are judged against one another in a blind tasting for grand prize winners. Those who are new to rating wine are usually surprised when lower-priced wine takes a higher prize or wins it all.

I believe that the generally higher ratings awarded expensive wines have quite a bit to do with the way they are produced. The best microclimate locations, proper clonal selection, trellis management, pruning bunches or discarding lesser grapes during the growing season to increase concentration, thereby lowering yields, make these wines labor intensive and expensive. The use of new or more expensive cooperage also drives prices, as do the per-unit marketing costs associated with limited production.

These techniques, except marketing, also drive the wines’ flavor profiles. Many writing today are attracted to oak, chocolate and the big, concentrated flavors produced by these methods. To me, this is unfortunate. I prefer the wine being food compatible except in the rare case when a spectacular vintage sends us juice that is ripe for maturation and stand-alone drinking. The modern construct seems to be, manipulate everything possible to provide a constant stream of wine the largest audience will buy. Then limit production, and add hype to drive pricing. I also believe the writers, in many cases, are driving or encouraging this effort, much the same as they drove the dumbing down to a norm they constructed, which occurred in the ‘80s and ‘90s.

I came to these conclusions by an interesting observation over a long period of studying wine.

Those with good memories will note that critical evaluation of wine runs in cycles. For example, today Argentina, Oregon, and Washington Malbec and Italian blends using Sangiovese (did you know Brunello di Montalcino was just Sangiovese? Same with Chianti.) are all the rage. What happened to Cali cold Pinot Noir and Chards, Chile and Aussie Shiraz? Not to mention New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc. Prior it was Rhone, Rhone Rangers and Central Coast Cali chards. Before that, Cabernet so tannic your teeth would ache, and high-acid, oaked-out Chards that needed a teaspoon of sugar and some lemon zest or ground green apple for balance. What about cold fermented, in stainless, bottled yesterday? Do you remember folks sitting in restaurants drinking the new release and wondering what all the talk was about and reverting to the Rodney Strong-Kendall Jackson Reserve model that wasn't so highly rated but tasted good, complemented food and you didn't need to sell your children to pay for it.

Please note that my ratings usually include price points. These are awarded for value and to compare the overreach in pricing that some use when given a decent rating. I refer to it as the WS, WA or RP effect, depending on who's waxing eloquent at the time.