I moved to the California central coast about a year ago, and when I did, I moved from beer country to wine country. Before moving here, I always said that wine tasted like wine, and that I’d be lucky if I could tell a red from a white with my eyes closed.
Since then, though, I’ve started visiting some of the wineries and tasting rooms near my home, and I’ve started to really enjoy wine a lot more!
In reading about wine I’ve seen criticism of Wine Advocate editor Robert Parker Jr.'s incredible influence over the wine-tasting world through his reviews and 100-pt grading system. I’ve seen it claimed that there are really two markets for wine, one for wines ranked under 90 pts by Robert Parker, which are bought based on perceived value, and one for wines ranked 90+, which are nearly Veblen goods (demand goes UP with price and perceived rarity/exclusivity).
I understand that having one person’s taste become that significant in a market isn’t good, but I’m curious about the specifics. Winemakers are reportedly “Parkerizing” their wines–tailoring them to his personal tastes. But what are his supposed personal tastes? What aspects of wine does he overvalue and what does he undervalue?
That’s my main question, but I have a couple of others, too. How much control does a winemaker have over the taste of a wine? I know about things like barrel aging and malolactic fermentation, but obviously there are other things that are less controllable. To give a specific example, I particularly like the earthy, “barnyard-y” flavor of some Pinots (and other wines). What produces that flavor and what can winemakers do to produce wine with that flavor?
Finally, I sometimes see wine reviews that describe wines as especially suitable or unsuitable for drinking with food. What does this mean? I’d guess that more full-bodied, stronger, and more tannic wines would stand up to the flavors of a meal better, but I like drinking those wines alone as well, and a lighter wine might go especially well with a lighter dish, so I’m not sure I get what they’re talking about.
Where-abouts on the Central Coast? (If you don’t mind me asking; I used to live in the Salinas/Monterey area.)
All of this is IMHO, and YMMV, BTW. About the Bob: the book on Parker is that his tastes tend towards the more extracted and richer, with a heavy emphasis on oak. As such, he’s not that valuable on areas that are more terroir-driven, like Burgundy or Germany. Bigger is better, and so, e.g., 1990 Chateau Montrose gets a 100, while the 1989 is, IIRC, around a mid 90s score. I’ve had both. The '90 Montrose is like wine syrup, and is definitely much bigger than the '89, and stands out a lot more in a comparative tasting, but the '89’s much better for actually having a bottle of with food. The '90 OTOH, is just tiring to drink more than a few sips of. It sure stands out from 20 other 1990 BdX though… His grading also seems to me to have gotten a bit easier over the years, comparing scores from his first edition of Bordeaux to scores he’s given properties recently.
So, when I hear “Parkerized”, I’m expecting a lot of new toasty oak, and very rich jammy wines. I’m not expecting a great deal of acid. Tannins are going to be softer, not as “stemmy”. There will be a ton of emphasis from the winemaker about the wine being unfined and unfiltered. (Even if the winery ends up having to eat several hundred cases from an unwanted second fermentation). Your Pinot Noir may end up having the body, color and flavors more typical of Syrah. In Italian wine—let’s pick on Barolo—I’m not expecting him to like Cerreto Bricco Roche. I will expect him to like Angelo Gaja, and he does. This isn’t a problem, unless you like wines like Bricco Roche, or other “traditional” wines, and find that the producers are changing in order to cater to people who’d rather let Robert Parker do their thinking for them.
That said, I find him to be extremely consistent, provided you can read his notes and calibrate them to your palate. From people I’ve met who’ve dealt with him over the years, while they may chafe at the guy’s ego or defensiveness, no one had anything bad to say about his integrity or devotion to his craft.
Re 90 point wines being pricey. Sure, I imagine it exists. The Veblen-like effect you describe seems to be true for some of the garagiste wines of the Right Bank and some of the cult California cabernets. (Feel free to add others, everyone.) The pricing for which have gotten really silly, IMHO. When you have wines coming out that for their first vintage are 2, 3, 10x the price on release of wines like Chateau Montelena or Ridge’s Monte Bello, wines that have 30 year+ track records of aging and developing, something’s gone screwy. Nothing says you have to follow ultra-rich people by chasing them though.
On barnyard flavors, a lot of it depends on winery hygiene. Brettanomyces is a type of yeast that will produce “sweaty, horse-blankety” types of aromas. Unlike brewers, this yeast isn’t one that the winery sets out to introduce into the wine; it just floats around in the air and gets into some of the barrels. I’ll notice it in quite a few Rhone wines. My own WAG is that you notice the poopy flavor in some red Burgundy (Pinot Noir), whereas you might not notice it as much in a richer Syrah, because Pinot’s lighter body and less intense aromas allow the poopy flavors to stand out more. In a richer Syrah or Grenache, the intense fruit flavors drown out the poopy flavors more. That said, winery environment has a lot to do with the flavors. One of my favorite Syrahs, Sean Thackrey’s Orion, supposedly gets its minty nose from the eucalyptus trees near either the vineyard or the winery (I forget which).
Wow, Gray Ghost, I’m impressed with all your information. Like I said, I’m still very much a tyro at this. I appreciate your comments about Parker. I don’t know enough to recognize any of the specific wines you name, but I think I get the gist, especially about Pinot tasting like Syrah. Around here everyone wants to make big, fruity, highly extracted, high alcohol wines, and lots of the top producers do indeed crow about the lack of filtering and fining.
BTW, I live just off 46 W and Vineyard, outside Templeton. Just renting a little cottage; may not be permanent. TONS of great wineries next door, though!
As far as the 90+ wines go, that was just an example of how I’ve heard Parker being perceived as given too much influence. My go-to wine recently has been Pillar Box Red from Australia, a very big, extracted wine that Parker gave 91 pts to, that’s under 10 bucks at World Market!
Regarding the barnyard flavors, I don’t think you’re correct. What I’m talking about, though it is “poopy,” isn’t sweaty or horseblankety, and it’s definitely something that winemakers seem to go for deliberately. (At least they don’t mind pointing it out as a good thing in the tasting room!) I’ve also noticed it in some very big wines, although the Burgundian-style Pinot I tasted recently had it in spades. It’s definitely a pleasant flavor, despite having some similarity (once it’s pointed out to you) to horse manure–it’s really more of a rich, slightly musky, hay-like scent.
Paso’s really pretty. And just a hop and a skip from the ocean. Used to visit the Mid-State Fair a lot when I was a kid. I understand the area’s really built up a lot in the last 15 years; I remember when it was pretty much Wild Horse, Justin, and a few others. The Hospice du Rhone festival is in your area, and well worth your time. (Although, GAH! the prices have certainly gone up over the years. Still, the Grand Tasting in years’ past has had wines I’ve only read about in books otherwise. Whether that’s worth a $100 for three hours is up to you.) It’s been a few years, but it’s for Rhone varieties, what ZAP is for Zinfandel, or IPNC is for Pinot Noir.
Box wine has really improved in the last few years. This is great as it is a fantastic way to store multiple bottles’ worth of wine, and enjoy them a glass at a time. I’ve not had the one you describe, but I’m a fan of the Big House line from Bonny Doon, and the various Chardonnays available from Jean Marc Brocard.
When describing flavors and aromas, I like using tools like the Aroma Wheel (there are several versions of Dr. Noble’s work floating around the Web.) They are incomplete—I’ve yet to see one with either “Cat Pee” or “Poop/fecal”, and rarely one with “Gasoline”, despite those being three of the most common descriptors for Sav. Blanc, Red Burgundy, and aged Riesling, respectively. But they are useful for trying to compare fruit to fruit. Would “dusty”, “mushroomy”, or “smoky” be a better indication of the aroma you’re describing? You did mention hay; how about “tea” or “tobacco”?
IME, sometimes the flavor comes from the grape/clone. Mourvedre/Mataro heavy wines often have a mushroomy, earthy, dirty smell to me, no matter how ripe they get. Grenache wines often have a strawberry smell. At other times, it comes from the combination of clone and vineyard. I was told that Musigny has a hint of blueberry in it, and that it’s an easy way to ID it in a blind tasting. The two I’ve tried definitely did. Urziger Wurzgarten Riesling (insert umlauts as needed) often has a pineapple-y and white pepper smell, that’s way different than the apple blossom, talc thing you get from either the Wehlener or Zeltinger Sonnenuhr Rieslings, nevermind that you can easily stand in one and see the other two.
And a lot of time, it comes from the winemaker, though it’s harder for me to tell, simply because I have a difficult time remembering or figuring out which vineyard’s fruit goes to which winemaker. Sure, for example, Bien Nacido vineyard fruit goes to over 15 wineries, but my understanding is that the different wineries often farm their plots differently, to the extent that the different plots may as well be in different vineyards entirely, for purposes of looking at terroir. IME, a Qupe Bien Nacido Syrah is going to taste more like other Qupe wines than it will an Ojai or Jaffurs BN Syrah. (All are delicious, incidentally.) I lack the $$$ to verify this for myself, but Red Burgundy is supposed to be the poster child for wines that taste of their vineyard more than they taste of their maker.
Thanks for the compliment. We’re all tyros at this, and that’s what makes the hobby so interesting. Just keep an open mind, taste widely, and write stuff down. Looking back over my old notes, it’s funny how your taste changes over the years.
I read all the post and I realise you have a good grasp of the situation with Parker scores and such, but you failed to mention the other major contributor to this problem; Wine Speculator…whoops, I mean Wine Spectator magazine. As a manager of a retail wine shop in Manhattan, I can tell you, we hate the 1st and the 15th of the month, when the new spectator comes out. The uber-wealthy and there secretaries (adminstative assistant…sorry) will beging to call and want to know how much of the most recent 95+ rated wines we have in the store…and some even ask that way.
ie “Can you tell me how many bottles of the wines rated higher then 94 points in the most recent Wine spectator you have on hand?”
It is worse when the “100 Best Wines of the Year” list comes out. They dont want to hear the words “unavailable” or “sold out” The simple fact is a lot of those wines sold out when theirs scores came out sometime in the year previously.
And the other thing you need to remember, wines have to be submitted to Parker or Spectator for scoring. if it is a small winery, they might not want to risk the chance of a bad (nowadays anything under 90) score on their wines, because a bad score can seriously HURT sales nowadays.
IYE, does a Parker score or a Spectator score drive price more? IOW, which carries more weight, a 95+ from Parker, or the same score from the Spectator, or is it a madhouse, really either way? I remember the hype around the 1996 Cinq Cepages when it got named wine of the year by the spectator in 1999. I remember the price for it damn near tripling over night ($28, per Laube, though I want to remember it was priced in the low 20s, to nearly $60.) Nice wine in prior vintages, but really?
Do Parker or the Spectator even give bad scores anymore? It’s been awhile since I’ve picked up a Wine Advocate, but it seemed like the worst score he’d give would be a “?”, maybe an 85. In the past, sure, he’d smack a producer with a score in the 70s, but I hadn’t read of him doing that anymore. Ditto for the Spectator, though I don’t remember them using the “?” notation.
Here’s one question I’ve always had for retailers. Who provides you guys with the shelf-talkers citing the WS/WA/IWC/CG review for a given wine? The publication itself, the distributor’s rep, yourself printing it off their website?
Oooh, another fan! Yay! Pricey though. I really like his Pleiades wine too as its more affordable. Its a great brown bag wine to stump your friends with too. Every “expert” I’ve ever known that I’ve had blind taste the Pleiades is convinced its an Old-world wine.
Speaking of Rhone-ish or Rhone-style California wines, have you ever had the opportunity to try any of Steve Edmund’s wines (Edmunds St John)? I think they are fantastic and an expression of winemaking at its very best. Unlike so many of his California counterparts making “Parkerized”, extracted, inky Syrahs, his truly are very Rhone-like in their expression of the grape. If you haven’t tried them try his Wylie-Fenaughty Syrah or even the “Rocks and Gravel”. His wines are very fairly priced, too.
Indeed!
When I worked in Wine Retail we conducted tastings about 2 to 3 times a week and I would compile the staff’s tasting notes and take an average of our scores and write the shelf talkers myself. We rated wines from one to five stars with value being a crucial component of our scoring system. So under our system it was entirely possible to have a less expensive, slightly “lesser” wine actually have a higher ranking than a really expensive, “superior” wine…sort of a tip of the cap to the law of diminishing returns beyond a certain price point. This was a very large wine retailer…our staff would regularly get to go visit wineries in France, Germany, California, etc and we established some deep-rooted relationships with distributors and importers (like Terry Thiese) that afforded us larger and less expensive allotments of wines than other retailers could get, then we’d undercut everyone else on price.
Yeah, we had the other shelf-talkers put up by wine reps on their products too, but we as a staff encouraged people to buy wines that we had collectively tried and deemed excellent, again, with price being a driving factor.
Thanks for the responses! FoieGrasIsEvil, it sounds like you ran a great shop!
Gray Ghost, upon doing some research, it seems you were correct about the Brett. According to what I read, it used to be thought (or at least claimed by some producers) that some of those earthy, “poopy” scents were flaws caused by Brett and some were desirable expressions of the grape or the terrior. But apparently recent lab tests have shown that they all come from Brett, just different strains and amounts.
Ha ha! Sorry, Pillar Box Red is poorly named! It’s not actually a box wine, it’s named after the red “pillar box” style of mail box found in Australia (and the UK).
