Winemaking is neither an art nor a science; it’s closer to being a competitive sport like ice dancing. Similar to the way that many Olympic events hinge on the numerical grading systems judges use to award scores, the world of wine is fixated on a 100-point scale. Most reviewers, including your faithful reporter, use it. Wineries tailor their wares to the taste of the most influential scorers. The LCBO prominently displays high scores. And consumers scramble for these anointed bottles with a gusto that would make a wild dog blush.
The drawback is that wine scores are treacherous. They look too much like a grade you’d get in university. Eighty is an excellent mark for First-Year Torts, but given to a wine, 80 means it’s fit only for expulsion. The 100-point scale seems wide, but it’s oddly claustrophobic. Most wines earn between 86 (satisfactory) and 93 (superb), with the vast majority jostling each other in the bulge of the bell curve at 88-89 points.
The inherent subjectivity is also a problem. Most reviewers can agree on what’s a so-so wine and one worthy of a mark in the low 90s. Above 94, however, this breaks down. The difference between a score of 95 and 100 is not a matter of objective criteria — it’s a pure reflection of how close the reviewer feels to God at the moment he sips the wine.
The best way to master wine scores is to know the scorer. For instance, Robert Parker, the most influential American wine critic, is famous for preferring fruit-forward reds with lots of power. I, on the other hand, enjoy earthy and well-aged bottles. All things being equal, I’ll rate a mature wine higher than its younger equivalent. The upshot? Find a critic whose highly rated wine you consistently love — someone who shares your sensibilities. Unfortunately, this takes practice because not many wine writers acknowledge their biases. In that sense, they really are like Olympic judges.
Scribbling about swill
Why is it so hard to find reviews of crappy bottles?
- It’s a Small World After All
Wine critics mingle with winemakers and importers on a daily basis. If a critic tastes something nasty, it’s easier to pass it over in silence while focusing instead on good bottles worth recommending. - We’re All Winners!
Technological advances in agriculture and hygiene have made it difficult to create a truly bad wine. Cheap wines have never been so drinkable. - Damned with Faint Praise
If you see a mark under 85, the writer is, in fact, warning you to run. The worst score I’ve seen recently was a 78/100 for a bottle described as “strangely bacterial.”
Into the Short Cellar
Kilikanoon
2006 “Killerman’s Run” Shiraz
$19.95, Australia, Vintages #925453
I bought this bottle because I thought it was named after a serial killer. Imagine my disappointment upon learning that the eponymous “Mr. Killerman” was only a rabbit-hunting hermit from South Australia. In any case, this full-bore Shiraz is superb. Although animalistic and grippy, it also boasts fine acidity and balance. A good candidate for 1-3 years of aging. 90/100
Toasted Head
2008 Chardonnay
$16.95 [Ed. note: 2008 no longer available], California, Vintages #594341
If you don’t like oaky Chardonnays, then avert your pale, sensitive eyes. This delightful wine is saturated with the flavours of barrel aging: sweet vanilla, coconut and cream. The oak is rich but it doesn’t overwhelm the soft core of fruit flavours: canned peaches, apricot and mango. Not a bottle for the cellar. 88/100