Wine scores, and a backlash from the industry?

One of the most surprising things any wine expert has told me in the past six months -- in the past six years, for that matter -- came when Christian Miller of Full Glass Research told me he didn't think wine scores were as important as everyone else thought they were. His point: That scores matter to so few people who drink wine that the industry's obsession with them is kind of silly. After all, how many people who drink $8 Australian shiraz care -- or even know -- what the wine's score is?

Then, in November, a lengthy article in the Wall Street Journal (can't link to it -- subscription only) took scores to task. The author, a California professor named Leonard Mlodinow, sounded like the Wine Curmudgeon: "As for me, I have always believed in the advice given by famed food critic Waverly Root, who recommended that one simply 'Drink wine every day, at lunch and dinner, and the rest will take care of itself.' "

Combine this with newly-released research on the efficacy of wine competitions and medals (which Mlodinow also discussed), and I'm wondering: Are we looking at a wine world where scores are losing influence?

It's a welcome and most pleasant thought, and something I've pondered in the wake of the recession. My theory is that, as consumers trade down from more expensive wine to less expensive wine, scores will matter less and less. It's one thing to care how a $50 wine scored. Who wants to waste $50 on a crappy wine? Even something as silly as a score is one guide. But given that most wine that costs less than $15 rarely scores better than high 80s, who needs a score?

I don't think we're there yet. There are still too many signs in wine shops and liquor stores touting scores. But we may be on the road to that place, and I never thought I'd be able to write that.

wine scores, wine criticism, wine writing

Comments

[Alfonso]

Younger generations rely upon peer reviews ) Cork'd, etc. They trust their own more than the experts. Parker, WS, they are looking for new ways to reach out to these folks. But seeing how they operate on Twitter (bullhorn style, not cocktail party style) I reckon their influence won’t grow beyond their current reach.

[Jeff]

The problems with scores goes back to an earlier Curmudgeon post. Most tasting is not done blind and the taster is influenced by the name, the label, price, etc. I use scores and tasting notes when trying a wine I've never had before. After I've tasted it, I could care less about scores. It's all about how it compares to other wines in the same price range. My simple "test" is; Do I like this wine enough to buy it again?

[David]

I don't agree. People getting into wine like myself have no other way to select wines. I can go to wine.com or some other site and select plenty of 90+ rated wines for 8-15$. I can even stay under $12 and find plenty of wines. So why would I just select random unrated wines since they cost about the same price. I figure if I select only from wines Robert Parker rated 90+, I will mostly drink good wines and also learn about what good wines is all about. People don't just want cheap. They want value. Young people do more research online and usually buy things that either experts or consumers have rated. Same thing with buying a DVD player. I will go to amazon.com and read the reviews and buy the one rated high.

[Jeff Siegel]

David has hit on something that had terrified the wine industry when Amazon said it wanted to sell wine. Of course, they were scared of the competition. But they were also scared of Amazon's lists. What's the point of Parker or the person at the corner store or even me when you can click on Amazon and find a list of 10 favorite red wines for every occasion? There's no way they could have competed with that.

On the other hand, David, what makes Parker's palate better than yours? Why should you trust his judgment ahead of yours? Does he know what you like? That's what my crusade against scores is about. The joy of wine is trying something new, and it almost doesn't matter whether you like it or not. Trust your palate, and don't be afraid to make mistakes.

[Tim]

Good on you Jeff, David probably has a great palate and if it links up with you or another "critic" that is dandy. It is true that as time goes on and more wine drinkers rely on peers and friends instead of the magazines and newsletters that use the 100 point scale. There is a trend that it is the sum of accolades that matter. I'm with you, try new wines ask the wine merchant if that's your MO. Buy a wine that The Wine Curmudgeon liked...Check out the results of the Dallas Morning News Wine Show when the results are available. Trust your palate ladies and gents because yours is the best according to you.

[David]

Jeff, I certainly don't rely on ratings (Parker's or otherwise) entirely. I have tried plenty of 90+ rated wines that I don't like. But I like most of them. I keep a blog of every wine that I drink. Mostly it is just to keep track.
http://johnston-spissinger-wine-blog.blogspot.com/
I also try other wines. Sometimes I just walk into a wine shop and trust the person working there. Sometime I walk into a grocery store and just buy a random wine (what else can you do). I also don't think buying Parker 90+ wines limits you in any way. It is not like he is against all Merlots or something. I think he more or less like wines in all categories though I am sure he has his preferences.

The most important thing to me beyond selection is that I can read tasting notes by someone reputable about what I am drinking. Most wine beginners would never identify graphite or dentyne gum on the nose but when someone like Parker points it out, you do identify it and so learn about wine.