Being Critical of Wine Critics

Ever since Robert Parker, famed founder of Wine Advocate, started his 100-point scale for grading wines (he doesn't use anywhere near 100 points in his ratings as he rarely publishes a review for a wine rated as low as 85), wine drinkers around the world turned to critics and the grades or scores they give wines. Much as with other grades (see schools in the US), wine grades started to inflate. In Parker's publication, where he describes 100 as a perfect wine, he sure does give a lot of 100-point grades. Wine Spectator, on the other hand, gives fewer 100-point grades (they are exceptionally rare), but almost all the wines that they grade are in a less than 15-point span. Other publications are even worse in my experience using similar grading scales, but inflating them from those first two publications.

The message must be then that all wines are worth at least 90 points from some publication with wine or a wine-related term in the title. 90 points should be an excellent product. It's not necessarily anymore.

In all fairness, there are publications that get far less exposure in the US that have not similarly inflated their grades. Jancis Robinson and Allen Meadows (burghound) come to mind.

Then there are the medals. Lesser known wines often tout the medals they have won. Frankly, if you see a wine that has won "double Gold" at a top wine festival, it's probably worth checking out.

Ultimately, all of these ratings and awards are given to us by critics. As in other industries, my strong impression is that critics have become more useful to other critics than to themselves. Film critics, for example, tend to pan movies that are just fun, but will rave for weeks on end about films that might be beautiful and well acted, but so deadly dull, long, and boring that virtually all moviegoers leave with their jaws dropped wondering why they speny money on that. 

What should we expect from a wine critic?

Number one, honesty. Let's suppose I was a professional wine critic. And, just for kicks, suppose I had a very personal relationship with the fine people at Chateau Haut Brion. In all fairness, I have never had so much as a sniff or even a whiff, but I understand that their wines are life-changing. So, as a hifalutin wine critic, I go to visit my dear friends at Haut Brion to review their [pick your favorite vintage] wines. And, the wine that I taste is pedestrian. Do I have the cojones, assuming a 100 point scale to give this wine 85 points or lower? I might lose my friendship and my access. On the other hand, giving it a higher grade is just dishonest.

Additionally, though, as a wine critic, my full-time job would be tasting and writing about wine. Comparing wine to other wines, to previous vintages. I'd need to have a great nose, not just a big one in my case, a discriminating palate, an excellent memory for what other wines have tasted like, and outstanding knowledge as to the characteristics that particular wines are expected to have. Most wine critics pass this test.

In my opinion, this final characteristic is, however, the most important. A wine critic needs to find a way to lack grape/region/style bias. And, most can't.

I'll use myself as an example. Some people whose tastes I really respect just love red wines from Brouilly. Situated in the northern part of Beaujolais, to me, most of the wines from this region taste watery. They are just that light. But, some people find them their favorite wines of all.

Who is correct? Well, we both are. Taste is an individual preference. But, the question then becomes, if I am a wine critic and I am tasting a bunch of wines from this region, can I put my own taste biases aside and judge these wines compared to expectations of what a Brouilly should be and not what I would like it to be? If the answer is yes, you want me as a critic. If the answer is no, then I am like most of the rest of them.