Tom over at Fermentation has an interesting take on the 90 point rating that Pierre Rovani has given to the 2002 Romanee Conti. He argues that a comprehensive review of a wine must include either a reference to its price, or some measure of the value that can be derived by its purchase.
He also offers this delicious suggestion:
Is it appropriate for a winery in California that receives a score of 94 for their $50 Pinot Noir to say in their marketing materials that their wine, according to the Wine Advocate, is not only much better than the 2002 DRC, but costs 33X less?
Are we talking apples and oranges?
I don’t think so. But when a critic is confronted with this kind of massive gulf between their assessment of a wine and the cost of a wine, yet makes no mention of this gulf, this is the kind of conclusion that seems to me to be absolutely OK. And I wish some winery would do this.
So do I! And perhaps someday we’ll be able to. It would make quite an addition to the tasting notes.
The interesting thing is that many in the wine blogosphere have been incorporating "value" into their reviews of wine for quite a while (examples here, here, and here). This is partly what gives wine bloggers a competitive advantage over the mainstream wine critics.
I think Tom missed a chance to pimp the wine blogosphere in a very persuasive way on this one, so I thought I’d take up the slack.
Anyway, head over to Tom’s and read his excellent post. I rate it a 96, and at a cost of $0.00 it is also a fantastic value.