The Top 100 Wines of the Year

[Craig Camp]

It's once again the end of the year and that means holidays and The Wine Spectator top 100 wines of the year. To me this list is a sad thing that is an insult to passionate winemakers all over the world.

Can you not only select the best 100 wines of the year, but the best wine of the year?

It seems ludicrous at best, but it once again reminds us that The Wine Spectator is really good at one thing: marketing The Wine Spectator.

[budrichard]

Our local library has the 'Spectator' so I scan every issue but the prediliction for giving everything numbers turned me off the rating systems many years ago. But you can be sure that a good rating or inclusion in the top 100 will sell wine! -Dick

[Mark Sommelier]

Enough suspense, already!! I didn't get mine yet. Who won? ( and then, who cares??)

[BHwine]

I couldn't agree more with Craig. Though I'm relatively new to enjoying wine "seriously," (if that's not too serious sounding itself), the truth is I long relied on lists and ratings to choose wine. Now that I've moved beyond that, it's true, I am discovering a world of lovely wines to enjoy, many of which are not marketed heavily or otherwise widely touted.

It's fun to be free of the Tyranny of THE LIST!

[Coop]

The "list" or Parker's rating system are only two of a myriad of ways to choose wines. My favorite though was shared to me in the early 80's by a fellow who is now the head purchaser for our government run wine distributor here in BC.

He suggested buying the wine with the ugliest label. The theory being it must be good to survive in the business with such a hideous label. Every year this becomes more and more challenging, But still worthwile. Some wine that prove the point, all of Alsace, Chateau Palmer, Clos du Val, Dry Creek Suvignon Blanc, Vieux Telegraphe, and all of the wines of George DeBoeuf.

[Mark Sommelier]

Pardon the stupid question, but why does the #1 wine of the year not have the highest score?

[Carolyn Tillie]

Pardon the stupid question, but why does the #1 wine of the year not have the highest score?

From what I gather from their article, it has to do with the fact the wine "combines outstanding quality with fair price and wide availability." i.e., not just the wine with the highest points.

Edited to add comment - this is what WS says... I'm certainly not agreeing with it, just trying to answer your question.

Now that I have looked back over their list of the 100, my jaw drops open, aghast.

Edited November 28, 2003 by Carolyn Tillie (log)

[vserna]

The winner is 2001 Paloma Merlot. No doubt a great wine, in the line of Cinq Cépages. For some reason, in Spain the WS list provokes dangerous outbursts of uncontrollable laughter.

[Craig Camp]

THE BEST WINE IN THE WORLD IN 2003 IS A CALIFORNIA MERLOT.

...and the punch line is????

[ctgm]

This best wine in the world - I am a little confused?

Is it what is drinking best at the moment or is it what current release in the past year is drinking best? Can someone clarify?

Whichever it is WS is being a wee bit arrogant by chosing THE best.

[winebill]

While the "Top 100" Wine Spectator list is fun to look at, it does a disservice to the wine buying public. So many of these wines are no longer avaiable,or were never really available.

How about if they had a list of "The top 100 wines that you can find and enjoy"

All the "top 100 " list does is increase the prices.

[Craig Camp]

This best wine in the world - I am a little confused?

Is it what is drinking best at the moment or is it what current release in the past year is drinking best? Can someone clarify?

Whichever it is WS is being a wee bit arrogant by chosing THE best.

1. No you are not confused. You clearly understand it does not make any sense.

2. No, it is one of those grand mysteries like The Wine Clip.

3. I have heard people of that opinion.

[ctgm]

It reminds me of some wines that I submitted to Decanter for a New vs Old World tasting. Must have been back in about 1997. I put in some lovely Sancerre's by Gitton (I think 1995s that weren't appreciated) and was surprised that the winner of the tasting was an Australian Cabernet from 1990.

(If I had known that reds and whites were being compared in the same tasting and that there was a wide variety of ages I wouldn't have bothered submitting the wines but drunk them myself)

[GordonCooks]

THE BEST WINE IN THE WORLD IN 2003 IS A CALIFORNIA MERLOT.

...and the punch line is????

My Guess is the 2001 Pride Merlot - the were fawning over it in the magazine.

Edit - I'm probably already wrong - everyone is saying it's the Paloma

Edited November 28, 2003 by GordonCooks (log)

[Echezeaux]

As the Wine Spectator is a journal that claims that wine's quality can be measured using a numerical scale, it IS interesting that their listing of wines included on the Top 100 "Most Exciting" (not best quality) often has the highest scoring wines somewhere down the list.

This should cause readers and pundits to question the Spectator staff's ability to operate a calculator (much less a corkscrew). They claim availability is sometimes an "x" factor in assembling their list of wines. {A wine of large production with a fairly high score will beat out a 500-case wine of higher score. What is interesting in this instance, of course, is knowing whether or not the Spectator ever goes out to BUY a bottle of wine to verify that what is being SOLD commercially is identical to the wine in the sample bottles sent to them directly by the producer.}

And the e-gullet crowd is certainly aware of the impact a wine brand may have when advertising dollars (that may be the "y" factor) come into play, but the general public is not.

[tjaehnigen]

WS's list is really all just about advertising dollars. Plain and simple.

[jddoyle]

I agree that the "Top 100" is a ridiculous concept, but does anyone here have proof that advertising revenue has anything to do with related scores? If so I would love to see it, if not than that is a pretty harsh accusation to be casually throwing around.

[tjaehnigen]

I agree that the "Top 100" is a ridiculous concept, but does anyone here have proof that advertising revenue has anything to do with related scores? If so I would love to see it, if not than that is a pretty harsh accusation to be casually throwing around.

I am not saying that ratings and inclusion on the Top 100 list are directly related to advertising dollars.

I AM saying that the whole 'list' concept is all about generating advertising dollars.

[Carolyn Tillie]

Okay, the Napa winery I work for had a write-up in the Spectator PLUS they rated two of our four releases (88 and 90 points respectively). We have never advertised with them. We haven't given them a single advertising dollar.

On the other hand, I moonlight on weekends at another winery in Sonoma that is DYING to get *some* Spectator coverage and can't. They know what the Industry (capitalized for emphases) thinks of the ratings, but they also know that John Q. Public reads these things. It shouldn't matter, but it does.

Go figure.

[Echezeaux]

A vendor of winery equipment told me he had visited a certain producer. This winery had just signed up with a particular firm to market its wines nationally. They estimated, since this firm was prominent in participating in various Shanken & Company events and sponsorships, that would "enhance our ratings by about four or five points."

Sure enough, whether by good fortune, good wine or good will, their wines have achieved great numerical scores and they've gotten a wine or two, since, placed on the vaunted "Top 100" list. What an amazing coincidence!!!

In speaking with a Napa Valley vintner, I inquired if there wasn't "subtle pressure" to advertise in the Wine Spectator to get their wines noticed or reviewed. The reply was succinct:

"It's not subtle."

But the plain fact of the matter is various wine journals accept advertising dollars from the people whose products they claim to critique objectively. Further, these same "consumer oriented" publications accept samples from wineries. Isn't that a little bit like the restaurant critic giving the dining establishment a "heads up...I'm coming to review your place"?

And many restaurants already recognize the various critics, whether they're in disguise or not. Yet wine reviewers don't seem to wonder if the samples they're offered are legit or not.

The amazing thing about the Spectator's list is the number of people who then begin the "hunt" for various wines. Even if the wines are of a style or flavor profile that's not particularly attractive to that consumer.

---

Using their "excitement" factor in evaluating wines, perhaps a Charles Shaw-labeled wine should be on the Top 100 list since so many people have been buying that crap and excusing its lack of quality since it's "only $1.99."

---

I visited a California winery where the man "holding court" in the tasting room would pour a wine and spout off its numerical score from the Wine Spectator or Parker. Being a provacative fellow, I asked the man "Who's Robert Parker and why should I care?"

Everyone in the room laughed.

He poured another wine and told of its grand performance on Mr. Parker's scale.

"Who the hell is this Parker chap and why should I care?" I again asked.

Since I was really attempting to draw out something more intelligent than a mere numerical score, the fellow told one and all how severe of a critic both publications are and what a grand honor it is for them to have scored so highly.

I then said "Yes, but I have my own palate and shouldn't I buy wines which PLEASE ME? Why should I buy wines that someone else likes when I may not care for them at all?"

And, further, since I am paying you for the privilege of tasting your wine, what if I like it and Mr. Parker doesn't or vice versa? Isn't the purpose of your TASTING ROOM to allow people to come to their own conclusions? (Hopefully a positive reaction to these products...)

For if you are only going to sell wine based on what Mr. Parker says, why not simply hand each visitor Mr. Parker's reviews and let them chose which wines to buy from his say-so? You wouldn't have to wash some many wine glasses for one thing!

One sad feature about wine is that so many people are afraid to ENJOY something if it doesn't have the requisite score or rating. And, of course, there are so many people who can't ENJOY a wine UNLESS it has a certain minimum score or review.

Pity.

[Craig Camp]

Now that the list is officially released:

1 Paloma Merlot Spring Mountain District 2001 95

2 Château Cos-d’Estournel St.-Estèphe 2000 96

3 Casa Lapostolle Clos Apalta Rapel Valley 2000 94

4 Clos Mogador Priorat 2001 95

5 Château Léoville Las Cases St.-Julien 2000 100

6 Penfolds Shiraz Barossa Valley RWT 2000 95

7 Paul Coulon & Fils Châteauneuf-du-Pape Domaine de Beaurenard 2001 94

8 Joh. Jos. Prüm Riesling Spätlese Mosel-Saar-Ruwer Wehlener Sonnenuhr 2001 96

9 Graham Vintage Port 2000 98

10 Sette Ponti Toscana Oreno 2001 95

11 Two Hands Shiraz Barossa Valley Bella’s Garden 2002 96

12 Aubert Chardonnay Sonoma Coast Ritchie Vineyard 2001 95

13 Spring Valley Uriah Walla Walla Valley 2001 94

14 Clos du Marquis St.-Julien 2000 94

15 Château La Roque Coteaux du Languedoc Pic St.-Loup 93

16 Smith Woodhouse Vintage Port 2000 95

17 H. Dönnhoff Riesling Spätlese Nahe Niederhäuser Hermannshöhle 2001 97

18 Alban Syrah Edna Valley Reva 2000 94

19 Prats & Symington Douro Chryseia 2001 94

20 Chateau Souverain Chardonnay Russian River Valley Winemaker’s Reserve 2001

21 Château de Flaugergues Coteaux du Languedoc La Méjanelle Cuvée Sommelière 2000 92

22 Kumeu River Chardonnay Kumeu 2002 92

23 Moccagatta Barbaresco Basarin 2000 96

24 Château Langoa Barton St.-Julien 2000 94

25 Château Lagrange St.-Julien 2000 93

26 Mount Eden Chardonnay Edna Valley West Slope Edna Ranch 2001 91

27 Casanuova delle Cerbaie Brunello di Montalcino 1998 94

28 Mulderbosch Sauvignon Blanc Stellenbosch 2003 92

29 Château Bouscassé Madiran Vieilles Vignes 2000 93

30 E. Guigal Hermitage 2000 97

31 Château Latour Martillac Pessac-Léognan 2000 92

32 Albino Rocca Barbaresco Vigneto Brich Ronchi 2000 95

33 Lançon Père & Fils Châteauneuf-du-Pape Domaine de la Solitude 2001 93

34 Domenico Clerico Barolo Pajana 1999 95

35 Rosenblum Zinfandel San Francisco Bay Carla’s Vineyards 2001 92

36 Yangarra Park Shiraz McLaren Vale Appellation Series 2001 91

37 Dr. Loosen Riesling Kabinett Mosel-Saar-Ruwer Wehlener Sonnenuhr 2001 92

38 Numanthia-Termes Toro Termes 1999 92

39 Chéreau-Carré Muscadet de Sèvre et Maine Sur Lie Château de Chasseloir 2002 90

40 Patz & Hall Chardonnay Russian River Valley Dutton Ranch 2001 93

41 E. Guigal Châteauneuf-du-Pape 2001 93

42 Bonneau du Martray Corton-Charlemagne 2000 95

43 Château La Nerthe Châteauneuf-du-Pape 2001 93

44 Nobilo Sauvignon Blanc Marlborough Icon Series 2002 91

45 Marchesi de’ Frescobaldi Chianti Rufina Montesodi 2001 93

46 St.-Urbans-Hof Riesling QbA Mosel-Saar-Ruwer 2001 90

47 Concha y Toro Merlot Peumo Marqués de Casa Concha 2001 90

48 Château Malescasse Haut-Médoc 2000 90

49 Seghesio Zinfandel Sonoma County Old Vine 2001 92

50 Didier Dagueneau Pouilly-Fumé Pur Sang 2001 93

51 Kim Crawford Sauvignon Blanc Marlborough 2003 90

52 Lisini Brunello di Montalcino Ugolaia 1997 97

53 Domaine Tempier Bandol 2000 92

54 Neil Ellis Sauvignon Blanc Groenekloof 2002 90

55 Château d’Agassac Haut-Médoc 2000 90

56 Lingenfelder Riesling QbA Pfalz Bird Label 2001 90

57 Rosemount Shiraz Mudgee Hill of Gold 2001 90

58 Allegrini Veronese Palazzo della Torre 1999 90

59 Château Gruaud-Larose St.-Julien 2000 95

60 Columbia Crest Syrah Columbia Valley Reserve 2001 92

61 Gini Soave Classico Superiore 2001 90

62 Peter Lehmann Clancy’s Barossa 2001 91

63 Argyle Pinot Noir Willamette Valley 2001 90

64 Chateau Ste. Michelle-Dr. Loosen Riesling Columbia Valley Eroica 2002 91

65 Pascal Jolivet Sancerre 2002 90

66 d’Arenberg Shiraz McLaren Vale The Footbolt Old Vine 2001 90

67 Dominio de Tares Mencía Bierzo 2001 90

68 Capezzana Carmignano Conte Contini Bonacossi 2000 91

69 Bollinger Brut Champagne Special Cuvée NV 93

70 Château Beau-Site St.-Estèphe 2000 90

71 Viña Montes Cabernet Sauvignon Santa Cruz Alpha Apalta Vineyard 2001 90

72 Franciscan Oakville Estate Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley 2000 90

73 Finca Allende Rioja 1999 90

74 Bergström Pinot Noir Willamette Valley 2001 91

75 Castello di Querceto Chianti Classico Riserva 1999 90

76 Altos de Medrano Malbec Mendoza Viña Hormigas Reserva 2001 91

77 Byron Pinot Noir Santa Maria Valley 2001 90

78 Talley Chardonnay Arroyo Grande Valley 2001 90

79 Landmark Chardonnay Sonoma – Monterey Counties Overlook 2001 90

80 Sea Smoke Pinot Noir Santa Rita Hills Botella 2001 91

81 Rust en Vrede Stellenbosch 2000 92

82 Penfolds Cabernet-Shiraz South Australia Bin 389 2000 90

83 Cims de Porrera Priorat Solanes 2001 90

84 Beringer Alluvium Red Knights Valley 1999 90

85 J. & F. Lurton Toro El Albar Excelencia 1999 91

86 Nigl Grüner Veltliner Qualitätswein Trocken Kremstal Kremser Freiheit 2002 90

87 L’Ecole No. 41 Syrah Walla Walla Valley Seven Hills Vineyard 2001 92

88 HdV Chardonnay Carneros 2000 93

89 Robert Mondavi Cabernet Sauvignon Stags Leap District 1999 92

90 Castello di Volpaia Chianti Classico Riserva 2000 91

91 Bodegas Emilio Moro Ribera del Duero 2000 91

92 Pride Merlot Napa–Sonoma Counties 2001 93

93 Zind-Humbrecht Gewürztraminer Alsace Turckheim Herrenweg 2001 91

94 Beni di Batasiolo Barbaresco 2000 90

95 Josmeyer Riesling Alsace Les Pierrets 2001 93

96 Ojai Syrah California Roll Ranch Vineyard 2000 93

97 Cantina Vignaioli Barbaresco Vigneto Marcarini 2000 93

98 Ciacci Piccolomini d’Aragona Brunello di Montalcino Vigna di Pianrosso 1998 93 points

99 Lagier Meredith Syrah Mount Veeder 2001 93 points

100 Vincent Girardin Chassagne-Montrachet Morgeot Vieilles Vignes 2001 91

[winebill]

Thanks for the list Craig. I can can already hear the sound of "Case Cards" being printed !

[Coop]

Living in Vancouver where lists like this seem so abstract due to our government distribution system. I have only had two of these wines #13 and #51. They would both appear near the top of any list I was compliling this year. The Uriah was monumental with Famous Gate 2001 pinot as best wine I have had in years. Maybe they seemed so good because they were both purchased by a wine loving friend and shared over dinner.

To even think of acquiring these wines would be absurd in our situation in Vancouver. BTW whats with the Guigal CDP, it seems to be thier perrenial favorite. I've always thought of it as sort of a negociant wine. Do you think that Marvin Shanken and his crew ever have to pick up a dinner cheque. They must dine for free on the likes of Guigal and thier distributors.

Edited December 2, 2003 by Coop (log)

[Bill Klapp]

tjaehnigen, please do not hesitate to say that the WS top 100 list is directly related to advertising dollars. I don't have the link, but an empirical and reasonably scientific study was done a couple of years ago that confirmed, at least to my satisfaction, that WS is mostly about advertising. It consistently favors easily understood wines that are readily available at rational prices over the finest wines on earth, many of which fail all three of those criteria. A publication that is serious about rooting out the best would never publish such a "fudged" list in the first place. It would publish, as the Wine Advocate (generally) does, honest assessments of wines, without regard to price or availability, and then do a separate listing of wines that represent good values, even if they are not among the world's finest wines. The distinction has been forever blurred with WS. Classic, ageworthy wines that do not drink well in youth rarely garner top scores from WS. The top 100 is merely a Christmas gift to retailers. I laugh when I think back a few years to a less business savvy WS. They named the 1990 Sandrone Cannubi Boschis (production: around 500 cases) as the wine of the year. They then realized that, for WS's annual New York Wine Experience event, they had to deliver serious quantities of their top 5 wines. They ended up wasting valuable advertising space trying to get someone to sell them some of the 1990 Sandrone! I feel sure that they have many cases of Paloma squirreled away. I am also sure that the 2000 Leoville-Las Cases occupies the number 5 slot because it is the cheapest (by far) and least collectible of the 2000 Bordeaux that received 100 points from the WS. While I am at it, notice how many times the same scores are repackaged and republished by WS. It is pure commercial calculation. Never be tempted to believe otherwise.

[Jason Perlow]

The J.J. Prum which is #8 on that list really interests me. Thats a fairly easy wine to find.