Perfect Wines

[dlc]

While reading the tasting notes in Michael Broadbent’s new book, the following came to mind. Is a perfect wine always perfect? When we read that Robert Parker or Wine Spectator have given a particular wine a score of 100 points; or Steven Tanzer, Clive Coates, or Underground Wine Journal a 20/20; or even Broadbent giving *****; are we to assume that every time we drink this wine it should exhibit the perfect qualities for a wine of its type? With all of the knowledge and strongly held opinions that have been exhibited on this forum I thought it a natural for discussion. My point here is not to get into a discussion of personalities of the raters or the merits of scoring systems (see previous threads) but of the qualities that describe perfection in wine and how we evaluate them.

Do 100 point wines go through dumb stages or are the structure and quality always there? We have all tasted wine that for one reason or another had closed –up only to try again a month later that were terrific. On a Monday night at home with my wife is the wine perfect or only at a tasting or special occasion? Is this wine perfect now and in 3, 5, or 10 years will it still be perfect?

I am looking forward to your thoughts.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Dlc - I think you are mixing two different concepts. The score describes quality. It makes no assertion about when a wine is drinkable. When Parker gives 1990 La Chapelle 100 points, he is saying that it is a "perfect expression of Hermitage." But that wine also happens to be undrinkable right now. In fact the 1978 La Chapelle which is also 100 points is still undrinkable as well. But that is unique to those wines. Other 100 point wines might mature more quickly.

[Stone]

Yet again, to betray my wine ignorance -- If it's undrinkable, how does he know it perfectly expresses a wine's quality? Is he good enough to know exactly what a perfect wine 10 years from now will taste like today?

[Craig Camp]

Perfection is a tough thing to touch as it is always moving. The concept of the ‘perfect wine’ is obviously ridiculous. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The 100 point wine is a marketing mechanism designed to sell the reviewers publications.

It is not possible to attain perfection when there are so many variables from bottle to bottle. Maybe one bottle, in one situation, with one meal, with exactly the right companions becomes a 100 point experience, but because a change in any of these variables (even including the weather) can change your perception of a wine from bottle to bottle to label a wine ‘perfect’ is a bit silly.

In fact by labeling a wine ‘perfect’ it becomes less perfect because of the cost and difficulty of obtaining a bottle. I have seen many comment on their disappointment after going through hell to obtain one of these perfect nectars because they were let down by all wine after all the hype.

One also needs to consider statistical variation. What is the real difference between a wine scored 97 or 98 compared to one scored 100?

Take for instance Robert Parker. Mr. Parker is known to taste hundreds of wines in one session and has said he can fully analyze a wine in about 5 seconds. So, when he gives a wine 100 points that only means the wine is perfect to him in that situation. The only wines that can stand out in this environment are powerful blockbusters and those are the wines he scores highly and obviously personally prefers. I would also add that Mr. Parker is clearly a remarkable wine taster worthy of respect – even though I do not agree with his preference in wine style.

Besides personal variables there are the variables of the wine itself, often called a living thing, wine changes (both improves and declines) with age and environment. Then there are the changes wines go through because of storage and shipment in less than perfect conditions. A bottle you drink at a restaurant in New York may have received much different treatment than a different bottle of the same wine you have in Dallas. Neither bottle may be spoiled, but there is often a difference.

So yes I think you can have a perfect bottle – that is a wine in perfect condition, at its peak of maturity, with an outstanding meal and wonderful companions, but to argue that an individual wine is perfect is to ignore the realities of the chaos theory. There are just too many variables.

[dlc]

So yes I think you can have a perfect bottle – that is a wine in perfect condition, at its peak of maturity, with an outstanding meal and wonderful companions, but to argue that an individual wine is perfect is to ignore the realities of the chaos theory. There are just too many variables.

Craig,

You have hit on the point I hoped to have expressed here. In discussions with my "wine geek" friends I have made similiar points. I have also asked the question that Stone asked

If it's undrinkable, how does he know it perfectly expresses a wine's quality?

. As much as I respedt the abilities of certain reviewers I cannot belive that a wine is always perfect or as Steve has expressed

I think you are mixing two different concepts. The score describes quality.

has all the qualities of a perfect wine. Wine is a living and evolving thing and goes through life much as we do. I am usually perfect but not always .

[Steve Plotnicki]

As much as I respedt the abilities of certain reviewers I cannot belive that a wine is always perfect or as Steve has expressed

dlc - No you are mistaking what the proffer is when Robert Parker gives a wine a score of 100 points. He isn't making an absolute statement. He is saying that given all of the variables that impact this varietal in this region, it has reached a level of quality that he believes "is as good as it gets." It does not say that there can't be better wine made in a different vintage. For example, 1982 and 1990 Latour might both have a rating of 100 points (an example.) But the vintage characteristics are dissimilar. 1982 is higher in acidity, and 1990 has more opulent fruit. Yet they night both get 100 because they are both "perfect" expressions of that varietal, region, and style of winemaking. Perfect is not a scientific measure. It is a theoretical abstract like saying the Godfather is a perfect film. Get it now?

[Beachfan]

Parker has said the difference between a 99 point wine and a 100 point wine is his enthusiasm and level of excitement over the wine as opposed to some additional criteria being met inherent in the wine.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Parker has said the difference between a 99 point wine and a 100 point wine is his enthusiasm and level of excitement over the wine as opposed to some additional criteria being met inherent in the wine.

This makes absolutely no sense. Enthusiasm and excitement about what, the label design? It has to be about enthusiasm and excitement about something that he detects in the wine that is actually different.

[Craig Camp]

Parker has said the difference between a 99 point wine and a 100 point wine is his enthusiasm and level of excitement over the wine as opposed to some additional criteria being met inherent in the wine.

This makes absolutely no sense. Enthusiasm and excitement about what, the label design? It has to be about enthusiasm and excitement about something that he detects in the wine that is actually different.

Debate all you want but in reality there is no measurable difference between 99 and 100. Do you expect us to believe that Mr. Parker is not excited about a 99 point wine?

[Beachfan]

Debate all you want but in reality there is no measurable difference between 99 and 100. Do you expect us to believe that Mr. Parker is not excited about a 99 point wine?

Nobody said or implied that. It's a matter of degree.

What I think it really means, is that he cannot articulate what the difference is in a particular wine. He does not taste a 99 point wine and think "if only this wine was a little more (or a little less) xyz, it would be perfect". And I think he means he couldn't if he tried.

[dlc]

Does this mean that throughout the life of the wine it is a "perfect " wine or can it be better or worse at different times. I am not trying to rate the reviewer but I think we have all tasted "perfect" wines that were not perfect at the time. Should the inherent qualities of that "perfect" wine always be evident.

[Craig Camp]

Let's not digress into yet another Parker debate. My point is there is no statistical difference in quality between 97 and 100 (maybe lower) that can be measured.

[tommy]

Let's not digress into yet another Parker debate. My point is there is no statistical difference in quality between 97 and 100 (maybe lower) that can be measured.

i'm not sure what you mean by "statistical" in this context, but apparently there is a difference, in the eye of the reviewer.

[Craig Camp]

Does this mean that throughout the life of the wine it is a "perfect " wine or can it be better or worse at different times.  I am not trying to rate the reviewer but I think we have all tasted "perfect" wines that were not perfect at the time.  Should the inherent qualities of that "perfect" wine always be evident.

Yes I think you are right, certainly a wine can be up and down during its evolution. The qualities of the finest wines should be obvious to experienced tasters at all levels of maturity - even over maturity. Scoring should be rating a wines potential at its peak - even if the peak is tomorrow or twenty years from now.

[Craig Camp]

Let's not digress into yet another Parker debate. My point is there is no statistical difference in quality between 97 and 100 (maybe lower) that can be measured.

i'm not sure what you mean by "statistical" in this context, but apparently there is a difference, in the eye of the reviewer.

The question is not if the reviewer thinks there is a difference. The question is if you analyze a reviewers scores over time that the margin of error will spread out over a range of several points – making the difference of several points irrelevant.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Does this mean that throughout the life of the wine it is a "perfect " wine or can it be better or worse at different times. I am not trying to rate the reviewer but I think we have all tasted "perfect" wines that were not perfect at the time. Should the inherent qualities of that "perfect" wine always be evident.

Dlc - Wine is organic. Try to imagine that it is still growing and evolving in the bottle. What typically happens with a wine is after it is bottled, the balance between fruit and tannic acid is in favor of the fruit for anywhere between 6 months and 3 years. Most wines shut down during that interval. And simply put, that means the tannic acids start to dominate the fruit. The result is that the wine tastes like it has no fruit, and the tannic acid tastes like it is burning and gives the impression of drying your tongue. But when wines age, the tannins "melt" (for lack of a better way to describe the fact that they disappear) and the fruit is back in the forefront. But in addition to the fruit now being present, it also goes through a process called reduction where the fruit changes from having primary flavors to secondary and tertiary flavors. That is what is described as a mature wine. And when Parker gives a wine 100 points, he is really saying it will be perefect whn it reaches this plateau of maturity. Does that make sense?

[tommy]

The question is not if the reviewer thinks there is a difference. The question is if you analyze a reviewers scores over time that the margin of error will spread out over a range of several points – making the difference of several points irrelevant.

agreed. as with any measurement, even those from statistical or quantitative data, one has to assume a margin of error. i'd agree that the difference btwn 98 and 100, in the context of wine ratings or anything else, isn't measurable.

[ivan]

Debate all you want but in reality there is no measurable difference between 99 and 100. Do you expect us to believe that Mr. Parker is not excited about a 99 point wine?

Yes, well, the wine I drink goes to 101. It's one higher.

[Steve Plotnicki]

No Ivan that's your body temperature. We are talking about wine scores.

[ivan]

Now there's a worthwhile goal: Only drink wines whose Parker score meets or excedes your body temp.

Steve, Stone asked, above,

If it's undrinkable, how does he know it perfectly expresses a wine's quality? Is he good enough to know exactly what a perfect wine 10 years from now will taste like today?

and you indirectly answered him:

And when Parker gives a wine 100 points, he is really saying it will be perefect when it reaches this plateau of maturity.

So the score is often not so much a score as a prediction. Have you ever had a wine that you felt fell short of a high score awarded years prior? In other words, just how reliable are Parker's and others' predictions?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Yes that's right it is a prediction. But in my experience, people are pretty good at predicting this kind of stuff including moi.

The problem with this, like anything else, is understanding all of the inferences and variables contained within a numerical score. And to do that you need to bring personal expertise to deciphering what the ratings really mean. Some 100 point wines will last for 20 years. But some 100 point wines can last for 50-75 years. It doesn't take a quantum leap in logic to understand that wines that last 50-75 years can develop greater complexity because of a longer maturation process then wines that last 20 years can develop. Yet both wines get a rating of 100 points. So there are 100 point wines, and then there are 100 point wines if you know what I mean.

Edited March 2, 2003 by Steve Plotnicki (log)

[KatieLoeb]

Does anyone besides myself think that a subjective scale based on ONE PERSON'S TASTE is an absurd concept to take as gospel? Yes - Parker is a wine "expert", but I hardly think his opinion is the be-all and end-all that everyone seems to think it is. I think trying to "rate" wines is also kind of a silly endevour. I've found that many of those highly "rated" wines are also heavy advertisement purchasers in whatever glossy four color wine magazine you wish to fill in the blank with. More often than not, the wines that I personally am fond of do not have a marketing department or public relations campaign or television or radio advertisements backing them up. Wine made by farmers that have real dirt under their fingernails is always a better bet than that which is hyped or over-hyped by the wine press, the so-called experts, or the competitive clique of collectors and wine auction attendees that collect wine like animal head trophys for their library walls. It's usually a lot more affordable too. Perhaps if I was of a different socioeconomic level this nonsense might matter to me, but I find that I can still function professionally by actually TASTING the products that my purveyors bring around, reading the wine press for information but not ratings, and just drinking a lot of wine on my own. If I find things I like that I think will be a good match on a wine list, will perform both economically for the restaurant and make the customer's feel that they've tried something interesting that enhanced their dining pleasure and didn't leave them feeling ripped off, then I've accomplished what I'm trying to do.

Edited March 2, 2003 by KatieLoeb (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

Let me try to unpack that post because you have merged a few points together. You are latching on to two different market segments. One is overstated, like the California chardonnays the Wine Spectator gives 90+ points to. The other is an understated and overlooked segment of the market that likes artisanal wines that are unpopular with the first market segment I just described. Okay, I agree with that. But put that aside for a minute.

What does either of those market segments have to do with 1999 La Tache or 2000 Lafite being 100 point wines? What the people in this thread are trying to get to the bottom of, is what that means? And while I agree with you that sometimes the market blurs good and bad because it skews things, I assure you at the high end it isn't skewed at all. Not that I agree that every wine that scores that high merits the score, but that is personal to me. Clearly I can see why they get those scores based on some objective scale whether I agree with it or not.

[ivan]

...and just drinking a lot of wine on my own.

If you ever care for some company, I'll be happy to join you. Together, we can drink twice as much wine, and have a lovely chat, besides.

[KatieLoeb]

If you ever care for some company, I'll be happy to join you. Together, we can drink twice as much wine, and have a lovely chat, besides.

Thanks, Ivan. Definitely the best offer I've gotten in some time.

I didn't mean to upset anyone, but my whole argument is that Parker's 100 point scale is precisely that - Parker's 100 point scale. To imply that it's some sort of objective thing is, by definition, simply not true. It's not whether I agree with it or not, it's simply not what it purports to be. Sure there might be some "value" in it, but that's only once I figure out whether Mr. Parker's tastes are anything like my own. Unfortunately, I have neither the personal bank account nor the free reign over my purchasing budget to test that theory to where I'm comfortable taking all Mr. Parker (or anyone else for that matter) says as gospel. And yes- I agree with Steve Plotnicki when he says that it's about market segments. The problem is that by blindly following the "experts" and their "ratings" we are feeding into the cycle that keeps the average consumer ignorant, and keeps funneling money into the pocket's of the Goerges DuBouef's and the California Chardonnay "hit-me-over-the-head-with-an-oak-two-by-four" producers contingent, and the California Zinfandel producers that might as well be labelling their 17.8% alcohol products as Port!

Edited March 2, 2003 by KatieLoeb (log)