Sometimes I feel sorry for the wine consumer who is faced with all the rhetoric being thrown out there by wine writers and bloggers. For instance, take the subject of scoring wines. This has to be one of the favorite and most hotly debated subjects for wine writers to discuss. As a wine steward who sells to the consumer on a daily basis I have to say that most could give a rats ass about scores. Maybe, and I mean maybe I run into one or two customers a month who base their purchasing decision on a score by a wine writer. Those days are gone my friend.
Hats off to Eric Asimov who writes for the New York Times for having the biggest audience in my area. Eric does not score the wines he tries, but he does give his preferences and usually he has a theme and article that goes along with his review of the wines. He also includes a panel of tasters in many instances. That being said, Eric is on the East coast and I am on the West coast. Many of the wines he tries are not available here since they are scooped up by my East coast competition before they have a chance to migrate my way. Another frustration for the consumer. I guess the point of this tirade is that consumers do like to read about wines that are reviewed, it is just that they are not as consumed by scoring wines, and what that implies as wine writers are.
I have stated emphatically on my blog that scores are personal palate preferences of the reviewer. You simply cannot put a numerical value on wine. I write down descriptors of the wines I review and then put a score at the end simply to remind me about how I felt about the wine, not how someone else should feel about it. An “85” point wine may be a “95”point wine to someone else. That is as it should be.
The point debate is good fodder for the wine writers of the world, but for consumers it is simply a lot of words that are very cumbersome and in some case absolutely meaningless.
Recently, I read an article written by Steve Heimoff who is a wine writer and critic for the Wine Enthusiast. He has his own blog where he ruminates on wine and related subjects. He took exception to an article in Forbes Magazine written by Katie Kelly Bell. It is entitled “Is There Really a Taste Difference Between Cheap and Expensive Wine?”. http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiebell/2012/07/09/is-there-really-a-taste-difference-between-cheap-and-expensive-wines/ . He stated quite emphatically that there is without a doubt a marked difference in quality between an expensive and a cheap wine. http://www.steveheimoff.com/index.php/2012/07/10/cheap-vs-expensive-yes-virginia-there-is-a-difference/
Good for Steve! As a wine writer who is flooded with wine samples and is afforded many opportunities to taste some of the most expensive wines produced out of California and many other areas of the world, he has an upper hand on the average consumer. Of course he is an expert on cheap vs. expensive wines. Or, is he?
This is just another subject that wine writers and critics love to talk about. Can you really tell the difference between a cheap and expensive wine? Many will point out how consumers who were involved in a blind tasting event, picked a cheap wine over an expensive one. Can that be ignored? Absolutely not. On the other hand, many writers like Steve will point out that these events are merely flukes, and that the results are based on human error or lack of experience in wine tasting. I don’t know about you, but I sell to the consumer… Not Steve Heimoff!
That being said, I have tasted many expensive wines some impressive, some not. I can vividly remember tasting a ’47 Petrus that was beyond description. Sexy, ethereal and dreamy. I can also recall tasting a Rioja that went for eleven bucks that was layered with leather, chocolate and black currant notes that I would drink any chance I could get. (And I have!) There is a difference in cost of these wines of about $8,500 dollars. Is one better then the other? Yes. The Rioja will not last 65 years. Like Raqeul Welch, the Petrus got better with age. At the same age, the Rioja might have shown better then the much more expensive Petrus… We will never know.
I have tasted a ’97 Screaming Eagle Cab that did not impress me. I have tasted other cabs from Napa in the hundred dollar or more range that I have dumped down the kitchen sink after half a glass. This is also true of some very inexpensive wines I have tasted. The point I am trying to make here is that you can be disappointed with either expensive or cheap wines. However, it hurts a lot more when it is an expensive wine. Unlike wine critics, you had to pay for the taste or the bottle. Expense does not always equate to quality, and inexpensive does not always mean lower grade wine. I am not in agreement with Fred Franzia who claims that there is not wine out there worth more then ten bucks. I am also not in agreement with Steve Heimoff who claims that expensive wine is better then cheap wine. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
As a consumer, I encourage you to listen to your palate and your budget. Seek out wines you can afford and ask your trusted friend or wine steward for the best values. Don’t worry about price or scores, just look for the best quality-to-price ratio. Cheap, expensive… High score, low score… What really matters is what makes you feel good about what you spent. If you love wine like I do, you just want to enjoy whats in your glass… It’s as simple as that. Cheers! Stan The Wine Man
