Should We Do Away With Objective Wine Ratings?

A little food for thought for today.

My good friend Ben Simons (of deserved fame for his blog Vinotology) wrote an article for Palate Press that was published this week titled “Wine Writing in the Time of Technology” wherein he pretty much lays down a case for abolishing objective wine ratings altogether.

As a rogue wine reviewer (yes, that’s how I fancy myself) who uses an essentially 13-point scale system to rate the wines I review, I’m a bit torn on this topic. I find the Robert Parker “100-point system” (really 31 potential scores from 70-100) too precise, and “5 stars” or similar systems too vague.

What do my readers think (if any care to chime in, of course)? Do you like that at the end of my reviews there is a “Verdict” with a letter grade? Do you not care about those at all? What about my grouping the reviews by grade over in the right-hand column, does anyone use that to look at wines that received certain grades?

As the crowd here grows, I find myself more and more interested in why. So, even if you’ve never commented here before, I’d love to hear your thoughts on the topic.

A Hint of Pomegranate

2007 Brophy Clark Cellars Santa Rita Hills Pinot Noir

One of the great things about Pinot Noir is how downright pretty it can be. While Cabernet Sauvignon tends to be big and muscular, Merlot is often supple and soft, and Syrah is rough and gruff, Pinot Noir is pretty.

Sometimes that’s just what you’re looking for.

This Pinot Noir, sourced from the Santa Rita Hills AVA in California’s Central Coast, and bottled by Brophy Clark Cellars, is an example of a very pretty Pinot.

First, from its looks: the wine is a pastel pink in the glass, not quite a rose (there is more depth to the color than that) but very pretty, very (as luck in timing may have it) “Easter.” The nose is light and bright. There isn’t much here to weigh down the very nice notes of strawberry and pomegranate.

On the palate, the wine is light-bodied and crisp, with a bit of a candied fruit sugariness, but not enough to turn me off. Once again the dominant fruit notes are strawberry and pomegranate.

While I wouldn’t go out and say this is some fantastic wine, it is quite good. Would be perfect for those summertime dinner occasions that are a step up in class or importance from your average summer sipper rose.

Verdict: B

(photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chanycrystal/ / CC BY-ND 2.0)

Better Than Jug Wine

2007 Tre Cellars California Cabernet Sauvignon

Tre Cellars is the supermarket-bound, $10-price-point wine label of Guglielmo Winery, in Morgan Hill, CA. Not a ton of wine is made in the Santa Clara Valley home of Guglielmo, certainly not as much as in the Napa and Sonoma valleys to the north, nor the Santa Cruz Mountains to the south.

Even Guglielmo’s premier label, Guglielmo Private Reserve features just three wines (Petite Sirah, Zinfandel, and Rosatello) that are marked as “estate bottled & grown,” leading one to the natural conclusion that Guglielmo buys a lot of grapes from grape growers, and is primarily a winemaking outfit. And there’s certainly nothing wrong with that.

However, wine is as much about where it’s from as what’s in its bottle. In order for an American wine to use an AVA designation on the label, 85% of the grapes in the wine must have come from that AVA. Which is why when I see a label name its home as simply “California,” I get just a little nervous. What’s in the bottle? Cabernet Sauvignon grown in the cool heights of Howell Mountain above the Napa Valley is going to be very different from Cabernet Sauvignon grown in the sunbaked fields of Lodi. Et cetera.

Not surprisingly, this wine has very little character. It says very little about itself. The color of the wine is a bit tawny in the glass, especially around the edges, but it does get nice and ruby red near the very core. The nose is a bit hot, but features some black fruit notes, and a nice spice note, like cinnamon, that, while I don’t normally attribute such an aroma to Cab Sauv, was pleasant.

The wine is medium-bodied, but lacks any complexity whatsoever. Some very basic red fruit spars with some alcoholic heat (a bit surprising considering the wine clocks in at a modest 12.5% ABV), and there isn’t much else there.

That having been said, the wine is $9.95. It’s far superior to jug wine and lots of other California supermarket wines. It’s just not something I would choose to drink or can recommend.

Verdict: C-

(full disclosure: I received this wine as a press sample from Folsom & Associates)

2007 Tre Cellars California Cabernet Sauvignon

2007 Tre Cellars California Cabernet Sauvignon