It’s Time For A Real Wine Advocate – Part 1

October 21st, 2009 → 8:35 pm @ Josh Hermsmeyer


There is a better way to review wine. It’s costly, time consuming and potentially embarrassing. No one will ever use it. Except me.

I’ve always felt that wine reviews were lacking. Not because I’m sensitive to criticism, and not just because of the power of Parker or anything similar. What has always bothered me is that most reviewers take what I believe to be an indefensible stance when it comes to wine criticism.

It starts like this:

1. Wine can be objectively reviewed, and good wine is good wine. Therefore my review, and score, is a valid critique of said wine.

Then, when confronted with the fact that a high-scored wine in one publication got a much lower score in another, most critics will respond thusly:

2. Wine is subjective and therefore the fact that my review doesn’t correlate with another critic’s review is evidence only that people have different palates and preferences.

That #2 kind of cancels out #1 is rarely discussed, or if it is, it’s only by a bunch of no-nothing bloggers. Natch.

Some argue that it is the score itself that’s the problem. Perhaps, but it’s also hugely popular. People love them a score.

The popularization of the 100 point system is Parker’s greatest gift to wine consumers and producers, whether we like it or not, since it enrobes a very complex assessment in an elegantly simple package. If readers are made aware of the limitations of such a score (for those who care) I see nothing at all wrong with it.

The Real Problems

The #1 issue I have with wine reviews is that publications simply don’t take the assessment of a wine seriously enough.

What do I mean? Take alcohol content. Lots of reviewers will note the ABV reported on the label and, if it’s a California wine, snicker and snidely note that it is probably anywhere from 1 to 1.5% higher than stated. Fine. That could very well be true. But: did you have it tested?

The answer is universally: “No”.

Despite the fact that there are aspects of wine that are objectively quantifiable and that aid in the understanding and appreciation of a wine, no wine magazine, blogger or other reviewer in existence (that I know of) attempts to capture and provide context for the things we can say for certain are true about a wine.

It’s like Car & Driver test driving the new Audi and not independently testing the 0-60 time. It’s like consumer reports neglecting to verify the energy efficiency of the latest freezers.

The list of things that you can measure and that have a sensory impact on a wine include amounts and types of acid; tannins; alcohol; Brett; aldehydes; volatile acidity; ethyl acetate; sulfur levels and many others. If a wine is out of balance, and this lack of balance warrants a lower rating, a reviewer can quantify and put in context for the consumer why the reviewer came to that conclusion.

Ah, but what about the soul of the wine? Isn’t the beauty of wine that it is more than the sum of its parts? Quite so. Appreciation of what’s in the glass is the most important thing, and it is subjective. But doesn’t it make sense to remove as much bias from the evaluation as possible?

Which leads to issue #2: Wines are not tasted double blind. Double blind means that the reviewer isn’t aware of the producer or any other aspect of the wine’s provenance. The only thing they evaluate is what is in the glass. It’s how the Masters of Wine, WSET and others conduct their evaluations, and it’s simply the best and most objective way to assess a wine.

Why? Because you bring no preconceptions to the wine in the glass. If I know it’s a pinot from Russian River, I know to expect more robust flavors, higher alcohol and more body than, say Burgundy. These biases will color my assessment of the wine. Confirmation bias is a very, very powerful thing.

Moreover, it’s much more interesting to read that a reviewer mistook a wine with humble origins for a pedigreed Chateau. Or that a relatively obscure variety was mistaken for one of the noble vinifera.

Conversely, it’s always good sport to see pillars of the wine world mistaken for plonk.

It’s great drama and really interesting reading, assuming the writer is competent and a decent taster. And if they aren’t, the labs and the double blind reveals will show them for what they are. Or not. After all, it’s completely subjective :-p

Before your cornhole puckers too tightly (if you are a reviewer that is) please note that getting the variety or region – much less the vintage – correct blind isn’t a reflection on your tasting ability. Don’t believe me? Ask Clive Coates. Correctly assessing what’s in the glass and making a compelling argument for your guess, however, most definitely is.

Plus your failures will encourage others to join in the fun, since they will see that even well educated and knowledgeable reviewers often get it wrong. This is no mystery worthy of fear. Just the joy of discovering what’s in the glass.

Hope. Change. Wine.

There is a better way to review wine. It combines objective assessment with subjective preference in a compelling way, while providing story, context, and accountability. I’m talking scores out of 100, producer and regional story and commentary, double blind tasting, labs for insight and accountability, contextual pop-ups for technical and wine specific information, and beautiful creative commons photography. Pla-dow!

But you know what? No one will ever use such a system. Too risky. High potential for embarrassment. Too costly. Too time consuming. The list is endless.

No one will use it. Except me.

In part 2 I’ll further explain my vision of the Ãœber Wine Review and detail the first example of what will be a year-long foray into wine criticism for me. I still won’t be reviewing my peers’ wines – or at least not my US peers. All the reviews will be of foreign producers. But it will be epic. It will be fun.

And it will be Ãœber! Here’s a sneak peek.

Photo by xyldes.